September 29, 2003
My Evenings With Al Franken
Click on the image to see more of it.
Bestselling author and liberal hero Al Franken has been in town the last couple of days to promote his #1 book Lies And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. My bookstore was informed that Al would be coming in to sign all our copies of the book; as evening supervisor, I gallantly accepted the assignment of hanging out with him and feeding him books, opened to the title page, for him to sign.
So that was pretty cool. We talked (let's be fair, mostly he talked) about politics and the media, and his book tour. I got to ask him which Democratic candidates he liked; he said they were all pretty good. I got him to sign a book to me; he left me an inscription I'll treasure forever. I told him my favorite SNL skit of all time was the '88 Republican Debate; he said, "Yeah, that was a good one" and left chuckling, thinking of Dan Ayckroyd's classic performance as Bob Dole. Good times.
Tonight, Al spoke at a Cambridge Forum in front of an overpacked house. He told some jokes from the book. He answered many questions, managing his usual blend of thoughtfulness and hilarity (I especially loved his new slogan, "Fox News - Wholly Without Merit"). He was even coaxed into letting Stuart Smalley field a question about Bush's bullying tactics.
The only thing about the night that pissed me off was the handling of a question about Ralph Nader. Al said that, although he respects and admires Nader, he will never forgive him for running in 2000. OK, I can respect that, if not agree. But the hissing at Nader and savage applause directed at Franken's comment? First of all, Cambridge voted harder for Ralph than anywhere else in the country. Second, let's not lose sight of the fact that Nader was one of 43 reasons why Al Gore isn't President right now - and 40 of those are direct Republican theft. But that's all I've got on that right now.
The most promising things of the night? Al outlining some of his plans for a liberal radio network. Badly needed. And a few questions about the oughtta-be major scandal involving the Diebold voting machines. Please go read that article now; this could be the last death throes of American democracy and folks should know about it.
Posted by michaelf at September 29, 2003 11:17 PM | TrackBackComments
I'm really irritated that people STILL think that somehow Ralph Nader brainwashed me (that's how they make it sound) into voting for him. It's shocking when otherwise intelligent people make these comments. What about everyone who said they'd move to Canada if Bush won the last time? If I hadn't voted for Ralph in the last election, no one would have received my vote (which would have been the theme since I was able to vote the previous 10 years). I doubt that I'm the only one who that applies to. I'm grateful that we have someone like Howard Dean running now. Though I've heard too many people say they are supporting Kerry because they don't think Dean can beat Bush though they would prefer to support Dean. Uh, hello? How about voting and supporting for the person you like from the start?
Posted by: Sooz at September 30, 2003 09:44 AM
This is a little OT and I apologize. But I see from the graphic on your blog that you are a Dean supporter, and I wanted to say that if you are planning to donate to the September to Remember challenge and have not done so already, I am about $40 short of my personal goal. If you want to donate through my site and help me reach my goal, you can do so here. Thanks a bunch!
Posted by: Laura in DC at September 30, 2003 10:46 AM
Hey Laura, We already contributed directly via http://www.deanforamerica.com/contribute . Seems like the Dean Team is better suited to reach out to friends and aquintances.
Posted by: Sooz at September 30, 2003 12:33 PM
Ralph Nader had every right to run for President. He thought he could do the job, and he was a fine and legitimate candidate. Also, Ralph Nader running did not cost Al Gore the election. Al Gore cost Al Gore the election. Whether it was (a) proclaiming that Bill Clinton would go down in history as one of America's best presidents (let's face it, that's not the case, and statements like this bring Al Gore's judgement into question), (b) his constant references to the "lock box", so neatly satirized on SNL, (c) the antiquated and no longer useful electoral college being the way that presidents are elected and not the popular vote, or (d) the fact that HE COULDN"T EVN WIN HIS OWN STATE of Tennessee are only a few of the reasons that Al Gore lost. Haven't read Al Franken's book as yet, but shouldn't he be campaigning for the abolition of the electoral college and the putting forth of good candidates?
Anyway, one of the oddest book-signings I've ever sign, and I'm not crazy about it myself, but at least it is memorable!
Posted by: Vin at September 30, 2003 12:48 PM
Far be it from me to contradict my father (ha!), but I have to take issue with the characterization of the electoral college system as "no longer useful."
I think it's fair to say the the only time a person's vote is truly useful, is when it is the one that changes the outcome of an election. (As an aside, this is one reason why I never hesitate to vote my conscience in Massachusetts politics - I can't possibly change the vote, so I may as well vote what I believe (go Libertarians!)). I think it also goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway), that the vote is more likely to change a small pool of voters than it would a large one. The Electoral College amplifies the vote of the one who tips the balance, by having it count for 3 (or more) out of 535, rather than 1 out of 80+ million, it gives each voter a greater chance of swaying the election.
Besides which, it gives the candidates an incentive to visit the otherwise empty states, since their importances (in terms of votes - I'm sure there's plenty to do in North Dakota) are artificially inflated. Were it merely a popular vote, a candidate could reach out to over half the number of voters by campaigning in only fifty cities (44.6 M out of 83.1 M voters (admittedly in 1998, though the numbers likely aren't too far off)).
As another aside, I assume we all remember the fiasco down in Florida in '00? Imagine that going on nation-wide.
I'm not saying the the EC is necessarily the best way to elect people, but it's better, IMHO, than a general election. However, if direct election is favored, there's a simple way to do it: convice 38 state legislatures that that's the Constitution needs changing (Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3).
Yxylu
Posted by: Yxylu at September 30, 2003 10:56 PM
Consider this about the Electoral College, Mr. Yxylu (aka "son"): is a candidate more interested in getting the vote of person x who leaves in MA or person y who lives in CA? Clearly the latter person's vote is more important to him/her since winning California by 1 vote would bring more electoral votes to the table than winning MA by 1 vote. In America, it seems to me, everyone's vote should count the same.
Isn't this why candidates rarely spend time in states like Rhode Island, too? Doesn't the President preside over people in that state as well as people in CA, NY, TX, FL, OH, etc? We could conceivably some day have a person elected President who won about 13 states (I don't have the whole electoral count picture in my head these days, so 13 may not be exactly right, but it's close), each by < 10 votes and lost ~37 states and DC each by thousands of votes. If that meant that the person won with a majority of all of the votes cast, that's fine; if not, that's just plain wrong.
Posted by: Vin at October 3, 2003 04:45 PM
