Al Franken: a vote for Herseth-Sandlin is a vote for Nancy Pelosi

Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin brought Al Franken to Pine Ridge this weekend. Why you ask? Good question, says I. Franken is a very divisive figure. He can't quite stop being a clown now that he is in the upper chamber of the United States Congress.

I think the strategy here is indicative of the Democrat's problems across the map. HS can't win over many Republicans, and she's about as popular among independents as a pay toilet in Scotland. Her only hope is to gin up the Democrat base. Pine Ridge is that. Maybe Al Franken wowed them.

Of course the risk was that Franken would be Franken and say something stupid and alarming. Apparently, he didn't do that.

Instead he said something sensible, undeniably true, and alarming. From the Rapid City Journal:

Franken said he was in South Dakota to help Herseth Sandlin at the polls in what promises to be a tough mid-term election for Democrats. Despite their different voting record on such issues as health care reform and cap-and-trade legislation, Franken said, he is a supporter of hers.

"I think she's a great leader, and I really believe in her," he said. "She has voted differently than I voted on a couple of things, but we need to be able to have somebody here in South Dakota who's going to vote for Speaker Pelosi, not for Speaker Boehner."

Let me pull out the firecracker:

We need to be able to have somebody here in South Dakota who's going to vote for Speaker Pelosi.

Okay. A vote for Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin is a vote for Nancy Pelosi.

Maybe that works for voters on Pine Ridge, and maybe for the most committed Democrats elsewhere in the state. As for the rest of the state, Nancy Pelosi might be one of the few elected officials who is less palatable than Barack Obama. The Democratic Congress right now has an approval rating that is only slightly above that of dry rot. What do most South Dakotans think of Speaker Pelosi's work over the last two years?

God Bless Al Franken. I thought he might shoot a missile straight down through the deck and hull. I never imagined he would do it by telling the plain truth.

Hat tip to reader William for this story.

Comments

[Donald Pay]

So, Boehner is the alternative, right? Mr. Fake Tan likes to junket to elite golf courses. No Thanks. He refuses to specify which program cuts he wants in order to extend the tax cuts for the rich. That's not leadership.

[KB]

Actually Donald, it is leadership. It's just leadership you don't like but may soon have to get used to. In the same way, attacking Mr. Boehner's complexion and relying on slogans like "tax cuts for the rich" is criticism. It's just soggy criticism.

[Lynn]

Evidently this statement of Franken is a disaster. Two of the blogs I read, this included, include the tactic of either Pelosi or Boehner, which would you rather have. Fact - Pelosi is in charge now and will be if the Dems keep control of the House. Forget Boehner; that's all conjecture. If you like SHS, you will get Pelosi, and that's the facts. Face'em, Dems.

[BillW]

KB

Donald is typical of the left and not worth debating - incapable of understanding or discussing alternate economic theories on taxation - only capable of petty criticism and character assassination of anyone who doesn't agree with him.

[Donald Pay]

Sorry, it's Pelosi or Boehner, unless the Republican drop acid and choose Michelle Backman Tuner Overdrive. Out of those three, any rational person would want Pelosi.

[Bill Fleming]

I'm mostly testing to see if I can write a post here and have it stick. I've been trying for a couple of days on another thread and they keep dropping off. Like Mr. Pay, I'm not wild about the prospect of having John Boehner third in line for POTUS. I think he's irresponsible. More perhaps if this actually lands on KB's blog.

[William]

Donald, I'd take "Randy" Bachman over Nancy Pelosi any day and he's not even an American citizen...

I really don't think most "rational people" want to try to "spend our way out of debt", "pass legislation to know what's in it" and "comprehensively transform America" with alarming increases in Federal bureaucracy and power, all the while firm in the conviction that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are whatever a majority of the House votes they are.

[Bill Fleming]

Boehner's not concerned with debt, William. He want's to keep the Bush tax cuts especially those on the wealthy. And he doesn't want to fund education and social security, programs that are already paid for, but instead, unjust wars and a bloated military, which are not He's also not concerned with the Constitution and its Amendments. He wants to ignore the Commerce clause, and it seems the 4th 5th and 14th amendments, and may actually have problems with the 1st also. And as far as concern for his fellow Americans goes, he doesn't even want to give health care to 9/11 victims. All he does is play golf. Boehner. Complete loser. A thoroughly dangerous man.

[john w. burns]

plosi is the better pick. come on. pass the bill then we'll see what's in it

[BillW]

Let’s parse your overwhelmingly unimpressive comment a bit, Bill:

You wrote, “Boehner's not concerned with debt, William. He want's to keep the Bush tax cuts especially those on the wealthy.”

Opposing tax reductions does not make one unconcerned with debt. There are valid, differing opinions among serious economic experts on the question. Calling Boehner ‘unconcerned’ with debt because he sides with a differing economic point of view is a silly argument, but typical of liberals – anyone who disagrees with them is morally inferior to them

You wrote, “And he doesn't want to fund education and social security, programs that are already paid for”. In fact, taxes may well have been levied for these purposes but nothing in Washington is “already paid for”. It may come as news to you Bill, but the money was spent on other things. The country is broke and deep in debt.

You wrote of, “unjust wars and a bloated military” Reciting a mantra of unsupported liberal adjectives is not really an effective argument – just the opinion of an extreme minority.

“He's also not concerned with the Constitution and its Amendments. He wants to ignore the Commerce clause” which means he is not in favor of stretching the Commerce clause to give the Federal government unlimited power. This hardly makes him a ‘dangerous loser’ – just someone with a valid, but different - opinion from you.

“And the 4th 5th and 14th amendments” meaning you believe the war on terror is more akin to street crime and that captured terrorists have Constitutional rights … correct?

“And as far as concern for his fellow Americans goes, he doesn't even want to give health care to 9/11 victims.” Factually not true.

“All he does is play golf” Factually not true

“Complete loser. A thoroughly dangerous man.” More extreme adjectives without substance or significance.

[Bill Fleming]

Just my opinions, BillW. But there is survey research data showing Nancy Pelozi having a higher approval rating than John Boehner, as per Franken's point. Would you prefer to discuss that? BTW you've made some pretty inductive leaps of opinion here yourself, Bill. My discussion of the Amendments pertains to US Citizens, not terrorists. In this case, the citizens of Arizona, and US citizens in general viv a vis a requirement for someone to produce identification simply because a police officer may be suspicious of me and demand to see it. I am currently under no legal obligation to do so within the borders of my own country and emphatically wish to keep it that way.

[KB]

Bill F: do you drive a car? Then you are required to carry identification. You cannot board an airplane with such. If the police stop you for some valid reason, are they entitled to proof of your identity? Let's not be silly.

[Bill Fleming]

KB, let's be clear. As a citizen of the US and South Dakota, I am not required by law to have a driver's license, period. Nor am I required to carry any other form of identification on my person at all times. Nor can I be forced to do or say anything, especially anything that could perhaps incriminate me. That's not silly. Those are my rights as secured by the 4th and 5th Amendments. Do you have some other understanding? If so, I'd sure like to hear it.

[BillW]

I gotta go with Bill F on this one KB.

In Arizona the law is that when stopped for a crime if there is 'probable cause' to believe you might be an illegal immigrant the cops must demand proof of citizenship.

What can possibly be 'probable cause' that you hail from somewhere other than the United States other than how you look or the accent in your speech? If you or I are stopped in Arizona we may be guilty of all manner of evil, but there is nothing about either of us that would constitute probable cause that we are illegally in the US of A.

The first time a US citizen is stopped and detained for lack of evidence of citizenship then we have all started slippin' and slidin' down a slope that leads to a place none of us want to go.

[Kurt]

Dear Al,

Life and politics is nothing like Saturday Night Live.

Grow up jackass.

Kurt

[Bill Fleming]

Thanks, BillW you are a gentleman and a scholar.

[Anthony D. Renli]

A drivers license does not prove citizenship or legality. Even a South Dakota Drivers License. It proves that you are licensed to drive and at one time in the last six to ten years you were legal, but that's it.

Non-citizens of the United States could get a drivers license in South Dakota.

http://dps.sd.gov/licensing/driver_licensing/basic_licensing_info.aspx#whocanget

I had to help a scientist from Russia who was working on a DOE project in the Homestake Gold mine get his drivers license...He was here on a valid visa, but the majority of illegal's are people who overstay their visas.

So, let's say Sasha decides he wants to stay in the US, he get's his drivers license while he is here on his work/student/whatever visa. His visa expires and he stays in the US. At the time, his drivers license was valid for five years after he was due to return to Russia.

This means that the Arizona Police will be looking for Green Cards and/or Birth Certificates and/or Social Security Cards because a drivers license cannot be used as proof that you are currently legal. I don't normally carry any of these with me when I travel. I would have to have my wife, mother, or father contact the state and have a registered copy of my birth certificate faxed down to Arizona because I can't prove that I am a citizen without it. This most likely won't be a problem for me because the only thing I could be mistaken for is a rogue Canadian. But if I was born in East LA, or parts of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, or anywhere with a large Hispanic population and Spanish was my first language (the English as an official language debate is something different entirely, let's not get involved with that)?

[Donald Pay]

If I were Pelosi, I'd go to Republican districts and challenge Boehner to debate. Pelosi has been the most successful Speaker in years, passing a lot of legislation rooted in ideas of Republicans. Much of the health care legislation was Bob Dole's idea. There's no reason for Democrats in Republican areas to fear being tied to Pelosi. She's been able to pass the legislation Republicans favored before they were against it.

[KB]

BillF&W: It's great when you guys team up on me. I love it!

BF: no, you are not required to carry identification at all times. So long as you don't want to drive, vote, board an airplane, cross the U.S. border, buy liquor, watch an R rated movie, or do dozens of similar things, you can leave home without it. But if the police stop you for some legitimate reason while you are out, they can demand proof of identity. There is no constitutional right to go without proof of identity.

BW: Are we allowed to enforce immigration laws and expel persons who have entered illegally? If so, then we have to have some means of determining who those persons are. Lack of any identification is a clue. If the person left his or her wallet at home, that is easily fixed. Yes, looking "Hispanic" is a clue. Yes, that puts unfortunate pressure on American citizens of Hispanic descent.

So please explain to me: how can we enforce immigration laws without any requirement for proof of citizenship or any reference to national identity? If you can provide that, you have a great future in the immigration debate.

[BillW]

KB: You ask, " Are we allowed to enforce immigration laws and expel persons who have entered illegally?"

O fcourse we are, but any law that boils down in practical application to ethnicity constituting probable cause of crime is inherently bad law no matter how you look at it. The folks in Phoenix and Washington need to find a better solution.

You ought to do a little research into the ugly can of worms you will find in E-Verify - the tool that is supposed to help employers avoid hiring illegals and see where it takes you.

[larry kurtz]

Mexico should be admitted to the Union. Boehner is a tool of special interests. Noem is a Moron Implying Language Facility

[Bill Fleming]

KB, I think you're just being coy. You know better. I just know you do. The police and others have an obligation to ask under some circumstances. But we are never under any obligation to comply. And for sure, no one can demand to see my drivers license or birth certificate just because I'm driving my car. And if I don't show my ID at the liquor store, no one will call the cops to come take me to jail. ;^)

[Bill Fleming]

p.s. I have NEVER been carded for an R rated movie.

[Bill Fleming]

Mostly because I would never watch such things. ;^)

[KB]

BF: An acquaintance of mine was arrested and fingerprinted because he was pulled over and didn't have his driver's license. He was wearing his Buddhist robes, and had no pockets. The person doing the fingerprinting told him she had never had so relaxed a hand to work with. If a Buddhist priest can be arrested and fingerprinted for driving without a license on his person then you are, by Avalokiteśvara, required to carry and produce identification in that context. The only question then is which contexts are appropriate.

[Bill Fleming]

Not to beat it to death, KB, but actually, the question is, why was your friend pulled over in the first place? My hunch is that it was not because the officer had a "reasonable suspicion" that he was driving without a license or that he was in the country illegally. That is the real analog here, in my opinion.