Al Franken, Policy Wonk
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) welcomed her new colleague Al Franken to the Senate with a fairly rude remark: “It’s important he go against the grain of his past career and really get to know the issues.” As Jon Chait says:
A couple things here. I don’t know anything about Klobuchar in particular. But Senators, in general, are wildly egotistical and deem themselves to be far smarter and better-informed about policy than they actually are.
Second, as I’ve written, and which Norm Ornstein attested on the Diane Rehm show yesterday, Franken is a policy wonk. Anybody who’s spoken with him or read his books (as opposed to just read the titles) knows this. He probably knows more about public policy than 90% of his colleagues. I’ve never met Franken, but the inability of people to understand that somebody can have a career in comedy and satire and also knows a lot of public policy galls me.
I have met Franken, years ago, and have also been friendly with a number of people who’ve worked with Franken over the years and will likewise attest that he’s very serious about policy. After all, the salient thing about Franken isn’t that he used to be a satirist. It’s that he used to be a satirist who was so interested in politics that he transitioned to becoming a political satirist and then a candidate for office. All because he was really interested in the issues and wanted to make a difference. Most comedians probably aren’t very well-informed about policy issues, but comedians do have both the time and the means to inform themselves if they’re so inclined, and Franken very much was and is so inclined.
By contrast, the culture on Capitol Hill is actually quite hostile to consideration of policy questions on the merits. Senators and members of congress have extremely time-consuming jobs, and the job is basically to fundraise, to travel a lot, and to hustle on behalf of the interests of donors and parochial local interests. That doesn’t leave a lot of time for policy. And it’s also not good for one’s mental health. You want to “understand the issues” in the sense of understanding the interest group politics surrounding the issue, the leadership’s view of the issue, how the issue plays in your district, etc. But if you really understand the issue then awkward burdens of conscience may arise “should I really jeopardize the lives of millions of people around the world in order to advance the interests of agribusiness?” That’s not a question people want to ask themselves, so it’s better to just stay fuzzy on the policy matters.
58 Responses to “Al Franken, Policy Wonk”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:41 am
It never seems to be mentioned that Franken was on Air America for quite a while where he discussed a wide range of policy. I am still waiting for any useful contribution to American policy from Amy Klobuchar, by teh way.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:53 am
Senators and members of congress have extremely time-consuming jobs, and the job is basically to fundraise, to travel a lot, and to hustle on behalf of the interests of donors and parochial local interests. That doesn’t leave a lot of time for policy.
THAT IS POLICY.
I don’t understand why bloggers maintain the distinction between “politics” and “policy.” If you hustle on behalf of the interests of donors, your policy is serving your donors’ interests. When the subject of “health care reform” comes up, a Senator whose policy is hustling on behalf of the interests of his donors will try to impact the content of health care legislation by making it more favorable to his donors. Such a Senator will know enough about the supposed “policy” of healthcare insofar as this or that proposal would serve his donors.
It’s not because Senators are too stupid, too busy, or too unwilling to entertain difficult episodes of cognitive dissonance that they do not “understand the issue,” as you put it. They understand the issue as much as they need to.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:54 am
She’s jealous about Franken elbowing into the nerdy-looking-Senator market.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:58 am
“should I really jeopardize the lives of millions of people around the world in order to advance the interests of agribusiness?” That’s not a question people want to ask themselves, so it’s better to just stay fuzzy on the policy matters.
And that’s a question that Al Franken will have to ask himself. A quick look at his campaign website shows one of his priorities was to protect the interests of MN farmers, i.e wasteful subventions.
On the plus side, Franken is already an accomplished individual who got into politics late, so maybe he really intends to change things in DC instead of immediately becoming a leech looking for lobbyists’ money. And he can’t be worse than the vast majority of his new colleagues.
But it is strange to read this comment from Klobuchar; I’ve seen her a few times on the teevee and she seems reasonable and polite. Why do those Democrats always feel like they have to pander to the right-wing, while Republicans feel comfortable taking their orders from the fringe of their party? Although in light of the last elections, perhaps it is the GOP behavior that is more bizarre.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:58 am
Hasn’t Klobuchar been making the rounds for 6 months whining about how Minnesota has been deprived of a senator?
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:25 am
I don’t understand why bloggers maintain the distinction between “politics” and “policy.” If you hustle on behalf of the interests of donors, your policy is serving your donors’ interests. When the subject of “health care reform” comes up, a Senator whose policy is hustling on behalf of the interests of his donors will try to impact the content of health care legislation by making it more favorable to his donors. Such a Senator will know enough about the supposed “policy” of healthcare insofar as this or that proposal would serve his donors.
Uhh, because there is a distinction between policy and politics. You in fact describe it, and then go on to say it doesn’t exist.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:39 am
I wonder if she was wonder of those Senators praising Sen. Ted Stevens to the high heavens when he lost his election?
The Senate has a heckuva lot of dumbasses. It’s pretty rich to single out Franken if you’re not also mocking Inhofe, Coburn, Cornyn, et al. on a regular basis.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:44 am
I like Klobuchar and wouldn’t read too much into this sentence. It’s not good, but it’s more a general example of my frustration in the national Democratic Party: “DOESN’T ANYBODY HERE KNOW HOW TO PLAY THIS GAME?!?!?!” Instead of trying to go against the talking point, by saying “People will come to know what I know, that Al Franken is one of the most thoughtful and studious people I’ve ever met, and he will surprise people who think he’s ‘just a comedian’.” Klobuchar starts with the Broder/Cokie/Brian Williams CW, and plays along with it, because she doesn’t want to upset those nice folks (”Single payer is not on the table…. Impeachment is off the table…. It’s time to look forward not back…. etc etc etc etc”). Republicans, whatever their several and severe moral failings, never worry about upsetting Auntie Broder and Cousin Cokie.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:49 am
What Marshall said @2.
And #6 – what is the difference you speak of, could you elaborate? Senator’s (or any politician’s for that matter) policy is hustling on behalf of his donors – and that’s all there is to it; that’s both policy and politics, one and the same.
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:10 am
8: Definitely. They really do just strike me as a bunch of dumbasses. I think we can hope for a lot from Franken. He didn’t get into it for the money or the power. And he didn’t spend his whole life slowly having the morality drained out of him as he built a political career the way many do as they work their way up. Maybe the position will corrupt him, but he’s as good a bet for the good as any.
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:12 am
@ Why oh why #4–
Don’t hold your breath. I think Franken will be a great Senator, but the fact is, every pol from the Corn Belt, D or R, conservative or liberal, supports corn-based ethanol even though its efficiency and environmental impact is dubious at best.
Unfortunate though that policy outcome may be, I’d put a less pejorative spin on it–Members of Congress are indeed elected in part to plump for local economic interests, even if those interests aren’t worthy of market or taxpayer support. Hoping for an anti corn-ethanol Senator from MN is like hoping for an anti-coal Senator from West Virginia.
Whatever the merits are, it just ain’t gonna happen.
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:20 am
That there is a meaningful division between “policy” and “politics” as those terms are understood in Washington can be confirmed by the existence of the term “policy wonk”, and the failure of that term to encompass Karl Rove.
And, that said, although I don’t work with the Senate, Matt is spot on when he says legislators in Washington typically don’t know much about the finer points of policy. They certainly can, and some do, but it’s not really essential to the job. More of a hobby. If you really want an in-depth assessment of the impacts of a particular policy, don’t ask your elected representative, ask his or her Legislative Director or the more experienced Legislative Assistants. Better yet, find the non-administrative permanent staff of a Committee and buy them some beers — an hour later, you’ll have heard so much discussion about the issue du jour your ears will be bleeding.
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:28 am
Matt said a mouthful. Senator Cantwell knows that 70% of her constituents favor universal care and at least a very strong public option. She should know that reforming health care is necessary to prevent financial crisis. But she’s trying to hoodwink voters with talk about ‘co-ops’, just as though we didn’t actually live in the state with the much bally-hooed Group Health.
It’s hard to describe how irritating it is when a Democrat from a Democratic state turns into a Republican simply because she believes we have no choice. Maybe if this system is going to crash we should elect Republicans and let them be in charge when the ship hits the reef.
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:43 am
Hey all,
I remember her name coming up in a research article I was helping my advising professor on back in planning school. She had dome some work on sports stadia…in case any of you people were interested in her local government expertise.
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:49 am
I think this issue is less that Klobuchar has spent her career in government (mainly as a prosecutor) and that there’s a tendency for those who came up by the “correct” channels to be wary of celebrity/pundit candidates.
That said, Klobuchar IS really smart and well-informed (and it was ignorant of Chait to suggest otherwise by painting with the broad brush of “Senators, in general”). And she probably meant no ill will by this, and was probably more referring to Franken’s need to develop his public image beyond that of a satrical pundit rather than her actual sense of Franken’s policy chops.
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:52 am
I am a Democratic Party “ward heeler” in a county that has about as many Democrats as MN.
Here is some good news: Al Franken is well known and respected nationally. His challenge will be to dig deep and keep a national following in the policy/political media — this blog, for instance, or the Rachel Maddow Show where, I hope, he will shortly replace the silly Klobuchar — an Emily’s List quota-baby with no grasp of any issue other than whining about the GOP meanies.
The Democratic Party leadership is very old — as am I.
But, they have a “deal culture”, no military discipline or class solidartity at all. That simply does not work when there are no Republican moderates. It degenerates into a series of “safe/cheap” seats. The ultimate deal is … gerrymandering. But, that works in the House, not the Senate.
Committee chairmen — they are almost always men — have typically not run for office in decades. They raise money for the DSCC/DCCC and invest it in a few “targeted” campaigns run by their ex-staff members maquerading as campaign consultants, just as they imitated policy wonks. In fact, their expertise is walking dogs and taking out the member’s laundry.
If those “Politicos” were so smart, Hillary Clinton would have been the nominee and would have lost to McCain/Palin.
My observation is that “populist” Democrats who did something back in the day other than win one election and who have been doing something, including hard-fought campaigns, since then — Jim Webb, Al Franken, and, soon, Joe Sestak — should move very quickly to sieze the policy-formation, campaign-finance, and campaign management organs w/in the corrupt Congressional Party. They need to re-orient it towards rewarding merit rather than sleaze and to make it robustly competitive rather than corruptly collaborative.
Otherwise, the Democratic Congress is going to undermine yet another popular Democratic President and set themselves up for an “all politics is not local” campaign. GOP extremists — who look silly now — will put on faux-moderate suits and harmonize some pseudo-populist rhetoric in order to wipe out a brace of Democratic office-squatters, routing the K-Street Democrats once again.
The expertise of the GOP is raising money as the governing party — hence their dominion of the Law Lords, the Stalinist Pentagon, the Federal Reserve, and Club Fed. Those are more exlusive sources of legalized graft than the K-Street and the Congress. But, they run as the anti-government opposition party.
Congressional Democrats run as a rabble of resume-padding, concession-tending, patronage-dispensing barons and knights — a pitiful sort of 17th-century German nobility. For Thirty Years now, they have not figured out how to be either a governing or opposition party.
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:57 am
there’s a tendency for those who came up by the “correct” channels to be wary of celebrity/pundit candidates.
According to Wiki Klobuchar had some celebrity assets of her own:
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:06 am
Franken reminds me a little of Terry Jones, the Python alum who writes political commentary for The Guardian (I think) in the UK. When he is writing his column or for a film such as “Life Of Brian”, he does meticulous research. “Brian”, comedy though it may be, is probably much more historically accurate than any other Biblical film made!
I also agree that too many Senators (and Congressmen) don’t always have the time to be policy wonks, even if they wanted to. Fundraising and the permanent campaign take up most of their time, and if they have to rely on donors who don’t represent their constituents, that’s part of the system we’ve built here. Politicians care first and foremost about keeping their jobs, and it’s hard to get them to do what the public wants if their job depends on what their donors want. Especially since the general public idiotically falls for the ads donors pay for.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 am
It isn’t just “every pol from the Corn Belt, D or R, conservative or liberal, who supports corn-based ethanol” so does Steven Chu Berkeley PhD and new Energy Secretary. Ethanol isn’t that bad as a gasoline substitute. GM the car company you and I now own 60% of makes lots of flex fuel E-85 vehicles already, and if grasses work better as feedstock, well that’s what the midwest used to be covered in until a hundred fifty years ago.
Earl Butz under Nixon ordered US farmers to plant corn and soy fencepost to fencepost back in 1972 and we crippled agriculture in the third world. Shift some of that production back to grasses to cut our oil usage as a temporary measure and campesinos can go back to growing corn for tortillas and sugar for Coca Cola instead of coming up here to mow Anne Coulter’s lawn. And ADM and Cargill will stop contributing to Republicans too. All grass requires is eliminating a step from the ethanol refining process. It isn’t as clean as electric but then neither is the coal that makes the electricity right now. As a transition it’s not a bad way to go.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:20 am
CupOJoe,
In what way is Life of Brian historically accurate? I’m not saying it isn’t so, I’m really curious to know what was hostorically accurate in it.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
I listened to Al Franken’s show from the beginning (and went to one of the station’s fundraisers with Franken when there were about 30 of us – things have changed since then). He is TOTALLY a wonk about lots of things. Not only that, but he can speak on his feet, and he often had guests on who would disagree with him, and vice versa. As for his having been a comedian – it takes a lot of smarts to do that, and a highly-developed sense of satire and irony (note how the Fox “Daily show” clone totally bombed). If he brings a quarter of Paul Wellstone’s passion and humanity to the Senate, he’ll be a standout.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:49 am
Klobuchar is notorious, even for a Senator, for not wanting to be upstaged and for having sharp elbows. She doesn’t like having a junior home-state colleague who starts his first term with a much bigger national profile.
On politics versus policy… are people really confused about this? OK, how about this. Farm subsidies, or beet sugar protection. Nobody believes this stuff is good for the country as a whole, but for certain politicians it’s life’s blood. Same with sops to insurance companies and physicians’ groups.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:50 am
Hey– he did graduate cum laude from Harvard with a BA in PolySci, fer chrissakes…
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:51 am
And the reason why Franken ran for office was because Paul Wellstone was murdered.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I have known Al since High School. He had one of the brightest and quickest minds in our college prep school. He was State debate champion ! And yes a Policy Wonk even in High School – I can’t wait to see him make a fool of people like Senator Inhofe. You are all in for a treat.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Why is it that we give high marks to a politician like Obama and Kennedy for their natural wit and humor, but think a comic-genius like Franken is a clown? Franken doesn’t make people laugh by sitting on Whoopie cushions. He does so by getting them to see the humorous side of serious issues, and that takes real genius. Look at Jon Stewart. The Right Wing knows Franken is a formidable antagonist and so they are trying to neutralize him by using his strength against him and redefining his wit as clownishness.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
So if you’re a lawyer you’re automatically qualified to be a Senator. A brilliant career in comedy writing followed by several successful politically themed books, hosting a political radio show, etc. requires him to “go against the grain” of his past career. Does she think his success was an accident? It’s not like his comedy was along the lines of Carrot Top or Gallagher either. Typical establishment B.S., like when pundits were shocked that Franken played it cool instead of clowning around during the recount. Did they expect fucking joy buzzers and exploding cigars?
There’s no inner secrets to being a Senator, it’s a plum job. Any reasonably intelligent educated person with a bit of common sense could do a better job than most of the law school douchebags infesting the upper chamberpot.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:22 pm
So how do Senators square their huge egos with the job requirement of doing their special interests’ bidding all day? I think the answer is they decide what they think first, and then attract the support of whichever special interests agree.
So it’s a mistake to assume that Ben Nelson (say) doesn’t understand the issue or Max Baucus isn’t aware of the latest poll. They really don’t want government health insurance, and they attract the support of organizations that really don’t either.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:25 pm
The Senate has a heckuva lot of dumbasses[.]
Yeah: it’s a bit sad, really, because when you meet a US Senator, you start thinking about how that’s one of 100 people in a country of 300 million. And then, especially if you’re dealing with one of the dimmer bulbs of the club, appreciate that exclusivity is no guarantee of quality.
What I hope Franken manages to bring — and perhaps his delayed arrival will help in that regard — is a healthy scepticism towards the clubbiness of the place. There’s a certain amount of lip-biting required to get things done, but it’s a deeply dysfunctional body. He ought to spend as much time with Bernie Sanders as possible.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
And yes a Policy Wonk even in High School – I can’t wait to see him make a fool of people like Senator Inhofe. You are all in for a treat.
First of all, they’re already fools, and those of us who care don’t require Senator Franken to educate us.
Second, if those outside of the blogosphere don’t already know it, it’s unlikely they will suddenly gain that wisdom.
Third, even when highly intelligent persons such as Secretary Chu show someone like Joe Barton to be a fool (without trying to, I might add), the fool in question is unlikely to have an epiphany re: his fool-dom.
Outside of the that, though, your comment was spot-on.
That being said, I really do enjoy it when Barney Frank rips some Rethug shit-for-brains a new one, and would love to see Senator Franken (boy, it’s nice being able to type that!) do the same to someone like Mitch McConnell or Cornyn or take-your-pick.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
And this goes to show why I’ve been telling people I’m excited that we will finally have at least one senator starting next week. Klobuchar’s office was *appallingly* bad about responding to contacts, at least in 2007, the last time I bothered trying, and 2008, the last time any of my friends bothered trying. Coleman’s office was much, much better.
BTW, anyone who saw Franken beat Olbermann (and both of them obliterate Gretchen Carlson) on Power Jeopardy several years back would not question his brilliance or level of engagement.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Nothing anyone has said so far has done anything for my opinion of Klobuchar. God I hate senators…
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Did they expect fucking joy buzzers and exploding cigars?
No, but whoopee cushions were considered.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Klobuchar was a darling of certain corners of the left-blogosphere but I never quite got what it was they saw in her. It’s gratifying, in a backhanded sort of way, to see that she really is a dork after all. I hope Franken gets an opportunity to cheerfully shred her sooner rather than later.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Yeah, ethanol is bad policy, but it’s nowhere near first priority. It’s not hideously or obviously bad, it’s just bad on the merits. That’s way down the list.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Amy Klochubar should take her head out of her ass just long enough to kiss mine. Al Franken has written books, Amy my dear, that show that he gets public policy and politics far better than almost any officeholder in Washington D.C.
Oh don’t you worry about Al, Amy. Just do your best to keep up.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
A satirist as a policy wonk is unusual? Hell, one of the most obvious ironies of US political life is that the ONLY people who want to talk policy–Stewart, Colbert, Somerby, Franken, Maher–are satirists! It’s like their world is so reflexively self-parodying that they become authoritative about policy simply by dint of NOT being the lazy anti-intellectual assholes they are driven to lampoon.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
It seems to me that ex-celebrity politicians who have worked hard at policy and/or process (not a given, of course) have often had a lot of success eventually–I’m thinking of people like Ronald Reagan, Bill Bradley, Jack Kemp, Hilary Clinton, and even Fred Grandy. So I actually wonder if the low expectations for ex-celebrity politicians might help at the outset (e.g., lots of “X is actually a policy wonk and/or good at process” stories can’t hurt for a politician in their early days as they are establishing a brand).
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:15 pm
By the way, I was more concerned about ethanol back when I thought it was sucking up too many of the resources that should be going to other alternative energy and energy-efficiency programs instead. And I still think it is getting too many resources, but hopefully the pie is going to get big enough such that this is less of a problem overall.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:17 pm
No the right wing reaction to Franken is simpler than that.
He hurt their feelings. Worse he eliminated Rush from his perch as an actual political commentator and essentially forced him and all of Rush’s apologists to concede he is an “entertainer”. ‘Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot’ was more than hilariously funny, it changed Rush’s whole national profile among all but the dittoheads.
And ‘Lying Lies’ did much the same thing for Faux News. Sure the DFH policy wonks knew that 90% of Fox coverage was channeled directly from Norquist’s Wednesday meeting, but some not entirely crazy people bought into the ‘Fair and Balanced’ thing so hard that CNBC and MSNBC fell all over themselves following them with only MSNBC finally in some partial recovery mode.
More or less serious people on the Right continue to use Rush and Bill because they are convenient, but nobody takes them as seriously as their original self-images would have them be. I don’t think you have Olberman with Billo the Clown and Worse Persons in the World if Franken back in some of the darkest days hadn’t taken them down some pegs with those courageous (and profitable-which only makes it worse for people like Rush and Billo) books.
I for one am thoroughly looking forward to this, particularly to Al asking questions and following up answers in Committee hearings. Between that All State debate thing and experience writing for SNL some health care execs and others are in for a rough ride.
Remember that Sonny Bono was considered a clown prior to being elected. Of course Sonny Bono was in fact a clown even after he was elected. But he showed up in a coat and tie and at least pretended to be asking intelligent questions and so ended up being taken seriously. Franken is 10x as smart and 20x as funny as Sonny ever dreamed of being, and all he needs to do is deliver his punch lines with a straight face. And his targets will feel those as punches to the guts. Oof. Or as we say in the NW (and in Minnesota) Uff Da.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:59 pm
I think she’s not referencing issues that affect us. She’s taliking about issues that affect them, you know, the Senators. My guess is that the rest of the Senate is afraid Franken will not “play ball” the way they do.
July 3rd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Marshall wrote (and abb1 seconded–always a bad sign for the credibility of your argument):
“I don’t understand why bloggers maintain the distinction between “politics” and “policy.” If you hustle on behalf of the interests of donors, your policy is serving your donors’ interests.”
Because there is, in fact, a clear distinction between the two.
Politics, is the process by which people seek election to public office.
Policy, on the other hand, is the actual activity of making decisions about how government should work, and whom it should primarily benefit
Perhaps a personal anecdote will be enlightening for you:
For several years (2002-2006) I busted my ass working on political campaigns at various levels of state and national involvement, first as a volunteer, and eventually as paid staff. The goal which I was pursuing was a career as a political operative, because I was convinced that what the world (and the state of Arkansas) needed was more Democrats in office.
However, after spending said years wading through the muck that is the electoral process (and a brief and horrifying stint working for a lobbying–err, I mean “political consulting” firm), I got sick of the constant pandering and scaremongering, so I decided that what we really need is not better politicians, but objectively better policy. To that end, I’m currently pursuing a PhD in Contemporary European History with an eye towards landing a job in a think tank where I can have input on said policy.
Ok, that was longer-winded than I intended, but I hope it helps you appreciate the difference between the two. The fact that so many can use the two expressions interchangeably (or even, as in this case, deny that such a distinction even exists) is a depressing commentary on how much politics has squeezed out policy-making in our governance. However, calling them one and the same thing is tantamount to legitimating this deplorable state of affairs.
July 3rd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
#27: “…the upper chamberpot.”
Thanks, I’m stealing that.
July 3rd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
@ John Robert BEHRMAN
You completely miss the point, the republican party when it is functioning properly is all about ideology. The ideology drives the party and gets the base excited.
The democratic party when functioning properly is about feedback/payoffs to supporters and interests. When the republicans are at their ideological best (for example the ‘94 or under Regan) they win, when the democrats can break up the Republican’s ideology by convincing them to do things in a Democrat style, they lose.
The democrats win when they can use their payoffs to buy support and cash contributions, the Republicans see that and think they can do the same thing and win, but the Republicans can’t out-Democrat the Democrats… it just doesn’t work.
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Amy K’s been a great senator for us, esp. in the past several months. She hasn’t been whining, btw. She’s been asked her opinion, and she’s given it.
Al will be great, too. But now he’ll have to actually do something besides just talking. Maybe that’s what she meant. Or maybe it was about his support of Israel’s killing of innocent Pakistani civilians.
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
She’s just a lawyer and they think that only lawyers know anything and a guy who produced comedy can’t be smart and knowledgeable. I think non-lawyers are exactly what the Senate needs more of. A lot of very intelligent people don’t go to law school, Amy! Get out a bit more and you will discover that these people are teachers, doctors, professors, engineers, scientists, etc., etc., etc. Hell, some of them even work in supermarkets and fast food outlets. Yes, reallly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
If you base your opinion of someone on one quotation, and not the entirety of their words and actions over the course of several years,
you are the one who is poorly informed.
July 3rd, 2009 at 5:32 pm
DocMerlin -
Good one, I was chuckling for awhile at your humor.
Oh, wait, you were serious?
If you truly believe that ‘94 was when the Republic Party was at its ideological best, then you’re delusional. 1994 was all about Newt figuring out how to play on people’s fears and anger, and crafting the message around that. Their ideology was, and has always been (”always” being defined here as the last 30 years), get as much power as they can, and dole out favors to whomever they think will give them big bucks. I’m over-simplifying, but not very much.
The “platforms” for both the Democrats and Republics have a large component of doing things for their base. In that regard, the differences between them are:
1) The Republics’ base has traditionally been the wealthy and powerful; the Democrats’ base has traditionally been those who are not wealthy nor powerful.
2) In addition to their “base”, the Democrats (well, the left and center-left Dems) have endeavored to help provide for those who need help, whether part of their “base” or not. The Republics stance has been, in essence “If you were more deserving of help, we’d be glad to do so. But since you’re poor/black/urban/single-mother/what-have-you, you’re on your own. You slacker!”
3) Both parties try to regulate things that they find contrary to various parts of their “platform”. The difference has generally been that the Democrats try to prevent actions which harm “the greater good” (and, no, I don’t mean quasi-socialism); the Republics try to prevent stuff that they think is immoral or some such – even if it’s harming no one outside of their (Republics’) delicate sensibilities.
4) Relative to #3: the Dems don’t really try to deny that they’re trying to regulate certain behaviors; the Republics deny it until the cows come home.
As with most things in this world, there are exceptions to each of the above. But, for the most part, the behaviors described above are how it is.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:36 pm
SShe is my Senator and has been nothing but a huge disappointment. She votes with the Republicans too many times – and on topics that actually matter.
When I have called her office to discuss issue I have been treated disrespectfully and flat out lied to. When I spoke in person to her she promised to get have someone in touch with me to discuss – that was spring of 08 & I have heard nothing.
I will be working for a Democrat to primary her!
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Policy, on the other hand, is the actual activity of making decisions about how government should work, and whom it should primarily benefit
That sentence is an excellent succinct definition of the word “politics.” Picking winners and losers. The clash of opposed interests. The exercise of state power. Those things are what I’m talking about when I say that policy and politics are one and the same.
I had a similar experience to you, with some time spent hustling for politicians (though not as much). It was fine, but the exercise was about accruing power to particular individuals and interests.
If you want to spend your life doing good, I recommend charity.
July 4th, 2009 at 12:41 am
Anybody have an idea how many Harvard Poli. Sci. grads have made it to the Senate? What about any Ivy League? And how many current Senators were cum laude at whatever school they attended? Sheesh.
July 4th, 2009 at 2:21 am
Interesting idea, that Senators don’t learn policy details to protect their consciences. But I think the power of denial is significant enough that Senators learn some relevant details and just ignore the rest. So more selectively informed, than ill-informed. The conservative view on global warming is sufficient evidence of this point.
July 4th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Indeed. Klobuchar might aspire to the level of wonkish knowledge Franken has.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
#45 – “Pakistanis”? Try again.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Sigh. I’m a liberal from Minnesota. And every time that ho-bag Amy K opens her mouth and lets stupid crap fly out, she just gives me more reasons to (1) despise her and (2) pray that someone WITH A FRICKIN’ BRAIN will run against her.
July 7th, 2009 at 4:37 am
This may be a false memory, but when Klobuchar was running in 06, wasn’t she a guest on The Al Franken Show? If not, I do know that Franken (not surprisingly) supported her on-air many times. She should know better.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
[...] this. Or [...]
July 7th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
[...] Al Franken, policy wonk (Yglesias). [...]