CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight baselessly included Franken in segment on "Dems behaving badly"
SUMMARY: Lou Dobbs Tonight baselessly included Al Franken in a segment on, in host Lou Dobbs' words, "Democratic Party scandals and downright bad behavior." During both Dobbs' teaser for and introduction of a report by CNN correspondent Casey Wian, CNN ran on-screen text reading "Dems Behaving Badly" over video footage that included Franken. During the portion of Wian's report on the Minnesota recount, on-screen text read, "Dems behaving badly: Democrats rocked by party scandals."
After the Minnesota Canvassing Board certified the recount in the state's U.S. Senate race, showing Al Franken finishing 225 votes ahead of incumbent Republican Norm Coleman, the January 5 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight baselessly included Franken in a segment on, in host Lou Dobbs' words, "Democratic Party scandals and downright bad behavior." During both Dobbs' teaser for and introduction of a report by CNN correspondent Casey Wian, CNN ran on-screen text reading "Dems Behaving Badly" over video footage that included Franken. Later, during the portion of Wian's report on the Minnesota recount, on-screen text read, "Dems behaving badly: Democrats rocked by party scandals."
From the January 5 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
DOBBS: With only 15 days remaining before the presidential inauguration, the Obama transition team is being distracted by a number of serious issues, being forced to deal with Democratic Party scandals and downright bad behavior. The scandals have forced a Cabinet nominee to step down and tainted the nomination of a new senator from Illinois. Casey Wian has our report.
[...]
WIAN: [Roland] Burris says the Lord has ordained his selection. A less lofty authority, Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, has now declared fellow Democrat and former Saturday Night Live cast member Al Franken as the winner of that state's Senate race.
RITCHIE: We will declare the results of the November 4th election.
WIAN: On election night, Franken trailed incumbent Republican Norm Coleman by 215 votes. After weeks of counting, recounting, and according to the Coleman campaign, double counting, Franken now has a 225-vote lead.
[...]
WIAN: All of this makes Democratic strategist and CNN contributor James Carville seem prophetic. On Friday, he wrote that, quote, "Political scandals happen in clusters," and he expects plenty involving Democrats this year -- Lou.
DOBBS: He exempted, however, we should point out, the president-elect from that, correct?
WIAN: Absolutely, and you know, people who study the issue of ethics in government we spoke with today said that they don't expect any of these scandals, at least so far, to impact President-elect Obama's ability to govern, but they certainly are disturbing.
DOBBS: And unfortunately seem like a continuation of what the Democrats were just -- was it just a little over two years ago? -- calling the Republican culture of corruption. Thank you very much, Casey Wian.
He's a Dem who won, that's the reason!
This is ridiculous. Franken has been a perfect gentleman, 100% above-board, through this whole thing.
There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.
You think republicans care? When you're the party of larry craig, mark foley, tom delay, jack abramoff, duke cunningham, ted stevens, mark jacoby, delecia holt, tan nguyen, kkkarl rove, jorge bush, cock cheney, rush limbaugh, sarah palin, jimmy swaggart, and that dude who kept telling everyone he was a former POW from vietnam, you get kinda desperate to yell "look over there!"
Franken has been a perfect gentleman, 100% above-board, through this whole thing.
Right-- As of this morning his own web site didn't even promote any of this-- it's been mum on the whole dispute. Al isn't even on TV shows yet. Compare that with Coleman's people.
He once wrote a book called "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot" and put an unflattering picture of Bill O'Reilly on the cover of another book and he says mean things about Republicans sometimes. Plus he smoked pot.
I think it's obvious this was coming after all of Joe Scarborough's comments about the Minnesota election. You say people are stealing votes enough times, and the legend becomes fact.
For all the posters (Tommy, I'm looking at you) who say that the offhand remarks on morning news/talk shows don't matter, this is why it matters. When a completely free and fair election is jokingly referred to as "stealing the election" and "getting ballots from your trunk" it DOES affect the public's perceptions, and subsequent reporting. It's all connected.
These kinds of things matter to people who don't keep themselves informed. You yourself see through the BS yet you and others who wail about these comments wring your hands and worry about how it is percieved. In this age of information there is no excuse for people to be ill-informed and if they are, they weed themselves out by making bad decisions and comments labeling themselves as such. Discussion forums like this tend to educate those who attend if they allow it to. If they don't, they relegate themselves to the doldrums of mediocrity. They are the ones that suffer. I truly believe that the best of things tend to rule the day.
Did it occur to you that people's misinformed decisions have an affect on everyone? Saying that people relegate themselves to mediocrity might give you a sense of superiority, but it's still a problem because people vote based on their understanding of the issues. We all suffer for that.
It sure did occur to me, brab. That is sometimes the price we pay in America for the right to express ourselves. We take the information provided, no matter how inflammatory or logical, and make the best decisions we can. When anomalies occur that defy logic, such as candidates taking office that clearly don't deserve it, we sometimes suffer for that but in the end, the system corrects itself and hopefully we all learn. BTW, you are the one with the superior attitude seemingly expecting all people to fall in line with your thinking, otherwise you would have the tolerance to allow people to express themselves without outright condemnation.
No, it doesn't have anything to do with the right to express ourselves. The information provided should be accurate, because an informed electorate is vital to the process. Anyone who says something untrue should have the character to correct themselves, or doesn't belong in the public discourse. You said it was a problem for the uninformed, and it's really a problem for everyone. I have the right to point that out.
the system corrects itself and hopefully we all learn
It sure worked well when a large percentage believed that Saddam was behind 9/11 and he actually had weapons of mass destruction. Tell that to the families of those who died in Iraq and see if they are satisfied about the "correction".
No, don't be silly. They just "weeded themselves out", didn't they? They have no excuses.
.........and when you respond to something I post to someone else, in the fashion you just did, it reminds me of a little boy hiding behing mommy's skirt while sticking his tongue out at his big sister.
I responded to your post directly. You do realize that you just addressed what I said while responding to Foghorn, don't you?
"No, don't be silly. They just weeded themselves out, didn't they?" It was a response to what I posted to someone else. That's what I just said. As for responding to what you posted while I was responding to foghorn, it wasn't an unsolicited response to foghorn about you, it was directed at you knowing full well you would read the post. Huge difference and you know it.
Yes, and I was speaking to someone else. He made a good point, and that brought your phrasing to mind. I responded to you directly, which means I'm not scared to talk to you. I'm not hiding behind someone else.
I fully understand what you are saying. It just seems terribly paronizing when poster "a" responds to poster "b" about poster "c" especially for a conservative like me posting on a site like this. I'm so alone---sniff.
sorry, patronizing.
That is terribly sanctimonious of you. I have to assume you lost a loved one to the war in Iraq and if so, I am truly sorry for your loss and sacrifice, and if not, your response is devicive. As to brab, who seems to dog everything I post, it is about the right to express ourselves. Dobbs, O'Reilly et al, are media pundits and nothing else. If you choose to take what they say as gospel, then god bless you. If you choose to do something about what they say or don't say, this is only a minor forum to make changes. Step up, brab. Run for election and make real changes. Public discourse is just that. Your superiority complex shows through when you suggest that public discourse should be accurate according to your standards and your standards only. BTW foghorn, it wasn't public discourse that persuaded most of the world Saddam had WMD, it was most of the intelligence from around the world that had been gathered to that point and few, if any, really believed Saddam was "behind 9/11". That's been the liberal strawman for the last 5 years.
Accurate means accurate. I don't know what standards you're talking about. Are you saying that this behavior is "accurate" by Dobbs' personal standards, therefore nobody can criticize him for it? People can have the right to express themselves and be accountable for their dishonesty at the same time. If you want to dispute that, I'd love to hear how.
I believe Foghorn was referring to the higher percentage of FOX viewers who believed Saddam had WMD and was connected to 9/11, as opposed to those who got their news from other sources.
First of all, you have no right to tell me what foghorn meant. Another example of your superiority complex. Foghorn is probably smarter than you and I combined, he can speak for himself. Secondly, who is the final arbitrator of what is accurate? These are opinionated hosts who generally speak with tongue-in-cheek(sometimes foot-in-mouth) and should not be used as reference. All of my posts indicate people should watch all sources of the "news" and decide for themselves what is "accurate".
I have every right to express my opinion about what he meant. It would seem awfully arrogant to say otherwise.
"who is the final arbitrator of what is accurate?"
Objective reality. There's no basis for suggesting Franken's done anything wrong, therefore it does not match objective reality. If these people shouldn't be used as a reference, then that's the whole problem. They're in a position where they're influencing people's understanding of the world, and they need to bear responsibility for what they do.
It would be arrogant of me to follow all of your posts and express my opinion of what you "really mean". I have absolutely no right to filter or augment what you post. Apparantly Dobbs feels Franken has done something. Have you written to Dobbs and asked him or researched his article for some clarification? I give what Dobbs reports all due consideration for accuracy-none. I ignore what I feel is fluff reporting. If I were to trouble myself with what media pundits say, day in and day out, I would be "so uptight, you could stick a piece of coal in my a**, and in a couple of days, I would have a diamond". Ferris Buhler.
"It would be arrogant of me to follow all of your posts and express my opinion of what you "really mean". I have absolutely no right to filter or augment what you post."
You have the right to interpret what I post should it be questioned. You addressed what Foghorn wrote, and I expressed my opinion of what he meant. There's nothing unfair or arrogant about that.
"Apparantly Dobbs feels Franken has done something. Have you written to Dobbs and asked him or researched his article for some clarification?"
Is there anything on which to give him the benefit of the doubt? Give me a break. If Olbermann made some totally baseless insinuation about Coleman, that would be unacceptable. It's not fine and dandy because it's his opinion, there has to be some factual basis behind what he says.
"I give what Dobbs reports all due consideration for accuracy-none. I ignore what I feel is fluff reporting. If I were to trouble myself with what media pundits say, day in and day out, I would be "so uptight, you could stick a piece of coal in my a**, and in a couple of days, I would have a diamond". Ferris Buhler."
Good for you. Other people are still being misinformed, and that's why we are "hand-wringing" or whatever over it. We want people to be accurately informed, you don't seem to care. You have a right to that, but it's not a particularly respectable viewpoint.
I care about things that truly matter. Take care of yourself, brab, and all else will fall properly into place because you cannot save the world, especially on this forum. And if you think what Lou Dobbs says about Al Franken is truly important or will ultimatley tear a hole in the universe unless you right that wrong, then I've got a big bowl of pepper I'd like you to spend the rest of your natural life picking the fly poop out of.
So where does that argument lead? Misinforming viewers is just fine unless it "tears a hole in the universe"? We don't need any standards at all by that logic. Nobody can speak out about anything of this sort, because "you can't save the world". It's plain ludicrous to argue that there should be some sort of test of ultimate importance before misinformation is disputed and condemned.
Apparantly you can't decerne between what is important and what isn't. There's plenty of other issues to "concern" yourself with. "and when you feel your not getting the respect you deserve, you can climb up on that cross and nail yourself to it". Kevin Spacey
Your declarations of what is important and what isn't are nonsense. I have the capacity to be concerned about many issues at once. I don't have to pick and choose, and ignore valid concerns about the state of the media because of the economy or whatever else.
I own both "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" and "The Ref" on DVD. I'm not sure how you imagine movie quotes are making your argument make any sense.
There you go again with that superiority complex. Just pointing out that this issue is not important in the scheme of things. I don't know many people who do, judging by the low number of participants on this thread. Movie or music quotes are a swell way of conveying an idea that illustrate the topic in question. Sorry if I insulted your lofty intelligence. BTW, I only rented them, I can't afford to buy them.
This thread? I'm not sure if you noticed, but the entire site is about the media. By your logic, none of it is important. It doesn't matter how much misinformation is out there, because it's not a world-ending event. So why are you here?
I'm here because I want to be. You can flag my comments and whine to the staff at MMFA if you think my comments are so displaced. Just another example of you not wanting to hear the expressions of others if they differ from yours or from the main theme of MMFA. Once again, MMFA has veered from its original theme of citing misinformation of the media to pointing out inane comments by worthless media pundits who are obviously uninformed yet still have the right to speak in this greatest nation on God's green earth, just to quote another pundit whom I totally respect for his knowledge of history and his willingness to share it with the world. I'm sure you have total disdain for the likes of Michael Medved, who, in his effort to provide valuable information to educate mis-informed people like yourself, gets your panties in a bunch for the simple reason he is a conservative and for no other reason. I recognize you as a closed minded individual totally out of your comfort zone when confronted by someone who knows more than you and is willing to express it even though they run the risk of simpleton name-calling and mob mentality so often expressed on this website. I'm not gonna go away and neither are the multitudes of conservatives sick and tired of people like yourself who simply can't tolerate others with views contrary to your, so get used to it. I can't possibly find it in myself to be civil to someone like you any longer.
"Once again, MMFA has veered from its original theme of citing misinformation of the media to pointing out inane comments by worthless media pundits who are obviously uninformed yet still have the right to speak in this greatest nation on God's green earth..."
Uninformed media pundits would be putting out misinformation in the media. How is that "veering"?
I didn't flag any of your comments here. I didn't tell you to leave. I just want to know why, if misinforming people is not important, why would you visit a site that focuses on such an issue? I have no problem with people with contrary views, I just expect people to have reasoned opinions. You just happen to demonstrate that you're incapable of forming reasoned opinions with increasing frequency.
You keep saying things like that, but indeed, this website is primarily about main news sources, and pundits (where people, like it not get their "information) being incorrect, and purporting to report news, while they are spewing lies, and misinformation.
I'll speak for Brab, he wasn't being "superior" if you read his comment, he says, "I believe..." which means, he is interpreting what Fog said, and it seems pretty accurate, and I also believe that Fog wouldn't have any trouble saying, no, this is what I meant.
Who is the final aribtor of what is correct? That's called, the truth.
All I can say, in closing for today as I must get back to work, is that I see everyone lamenting what other people say who are purported authorities,i.e., Lou Dobbs, when, especially in this case, it is a tempest in a teapot. Who cares if Lou says Franken is behaving in any fashion? I certainly don't. It won't alter what I think of Al, one way or another. I'm certain Al Franken is much bigger than what some clueless corndog says about him. Besides, if,as a U.S. senator he thinks whether Lou Dobbs thinks he is behaving badly is a big deal, wait til the press gets ahold of every move he makes for the duration of his term!
BTW, you qualified brab's comment with "I believe". Isn't that what you are complaining about? If by saying "I believe" what he meant and foghorn must correct brab, brab just misled me and others and has violated the doctrine of truth in reporting. MMFA would be all over brab. Just trying to illustrate that "accuracy" is often subjective in nature. It is the world we live in, like it or not.
"I believe Foghorn was referring to the higher percentage of FOX viewers who believed Saddam had WMD and was connected to 9/11, as opposed to those who got their news from other sources."
Magnolialover didn't qualify anything, that's actually what I said. Besides, I have a basis for saying that's what Foghorn meant, because it's a point that's been made many times on various subjects. FOX viewers did indeed believe those things more than anyone else. That means I made the argument in good faith, therefore it's not dishonest.
Read the posts again, brab. You're all over the place.
I have read the posts. If you meant something else, then you can clarify.
First of all, you have no right to tell me what foghorn meant
Here's what I meant. Yes, Brabs was right, it was a reference to Fox viewers being grossly misinformed. You seem very cavalier about lies being bantied about - but in the case of Iraq - because of the lies people DIED! Or don't you care?
most of the world Saddam had WMD, it was most of the intelligence from around the world that had been gathered to that point
You really don't want to go down that road, do you? Remember the Downing Street memo? Remember pulling the inspectors out when it was becoming obvious they were's going to find anything? No. You prefer to believe the lies. I feel sorry for you. And if that makes me sactimonious or patronizing, so be it.
...weren't going to find...
You don't have to waste your time feeling sorry for me, fog. I've got great self esteem. To suggest I don't care about the welfare of the people of this country and the lives of our servicemen and women is a typical liberal ploy. "you just don't care". One of my sons is in Iraq as we speak and after his present tour is over, he will be re-assigned to Afghanistan, as will my brother-in-law(his third tour). As for lies being the reason we are in Iraq, ask any of the servicemen and women why they are there. They will tell you. I have. After 20 years of the single most overt cancer in the region and after a horribly bloody surge into Kuwait, massacring thousands, and after bullying all of his neighbors, and after torching over 100 well heads which burned for over a year and after thumbing his nose at 13 U.N. resolutions and after torturing and murdering thousands of his own people, many with WMD(I don't care who gave them to him, it's the propensity) and after a decade of threatening the worlds petroleum industry, the time was up. We were in Afghanistan and he was given fair warning to leave. It was up to Saddam and he chose war and he lost, much to the cheer of most of the free world. Did he have WMD? Of course he did. Did we find any? Guess not. Is the world a much better place off because of his removal? You bet it is. Has this nation been hit again since 9/11? No it hasn't. Is GW the greatest thing since sliced bread? Hardly, but his #1 function as president is to protect the people of this country, and that he has done.
First, I don't feel sorry for you. Didn't even say that in my post, so not sure where you came up with that idea.
Second, congratulations! You've been successfully assimilated as shown by your rant in support of war and death. Have another shot of kool-aid. You've earned it.
Finally...but his #1 function as president is to protect the people of this country
You should plan on watching the inauguration. Then maybe you will accept the fact that the president's one and ONLY function is to uphold the consitution. And in Bush's case, he was an abject failure.
Oops. I did say that I felt sorry for you. After some additional thought, I really do feel that way. Being ignorant is no way to go through life.
Nice tapdance!
Thank your family for their service from me. You're wrong though about "asking any servicemember". You can certainly ask any Republican servicemember and they'll tell you that, but that is not even close to being the whole of the military.
By the way, GWB DIDN"t fulfill his function on September 11. Ask Richard Clarke if he had any forewarning that could have avoided or diminished 9/11.
Will I argue with you that Saddam was a horrendous despot? Of course not. Will I challenge pretty much every other point you've made? Absolutely.
I do appreciate your comment for my son and brother-in-law. Our servicemen and women don't serve a political party. If I asked any service personal why they are there and they respnded,"because our president is a Republican and so am I", I would certainly question his/her integrity. And if they responded,"I am a Democrat and don't want to be here because our president is a Republican, I would question their valor. Either is reprehensible. I truly believe those examples are few and far between in our military. In the case of 9/11, GW was president at that time and does bear responsibility for the occurance, however, hindsight is 20/20. If Richard Clarke was so sure of the future and had it been me, I would have made certain the American public was made aware and he didn't. There would have been nothing that could have stopped me from warning the public. He didn't. He went on a book tour post 9/11 as a victimized "hero", patronizing Americans with his famous "I'm sorry, I let you down". Too little, too late. If Richard Clarke has chosen to put himself in that position then he certainly deserves my condemnation and the condemnation of others even though the President is ultimately responsible. It will be his legacy.
This is hilarious from a moderate standpoint. The same thing happened when everyone cried about Bush stealing the election from Al Gore. Now, the Republicans are using the same tactic. Democrats and Republicans are cut from the same cloth.
Not even close. Democrats are consistant - count every vote. Republicans are all over the board - count these votes, stop counting those votes, blah blah blah.
Actually, the Supreme Court STOPPED the recount in Bush v. Gore. That was the contention. In THIS case, all of the ballots have been counted in a way determined and followed by the Minnesota election canvassing board in a full recount. Not quite the same.
The same thing almost happened. In both cases the Republicans tried to stop the recount. In 2000, in Florida, they succeeded. In 2008-9, in Minnesota, they failed to stop the recount.
I caught this, and it totally ticked me off. Franken was "behaving badly" by accepting the mandatory recount? By fighting for his rights under Minnesota law to see to it that every single ballot was properly counted?
Meanwhile, will Coleman refusing to accept the decision of the Minnesota Board of Elections and the Minnesota Supreme Court be called "Republicans behaving badly?" Will Coleman be called a "sore loser?" Of course not.
All along, there are only two possible outcomes for any close election as far as the media is concerned: The Republican wins honestly, or the Democrats steal it. What a joke.
Al Franken had the option of waiving his right to a recount.
I guess Lou Dobb and/or his producers consider it bad behavior that he didn't.
Not having been there for the count in Minnesota for the Franken vote, I can't say for sure that there was fraud, but here in Washington State we have first hand knowledge that there was fraud in the recounting of the previous Governors race! Unbelievable audacity! Many ballots were actually whited out and remarked by those recounting! Even when you see it happening and question it, you're overridden and the fraud continues!
If you're a Democrat OR a Republican, and are not one who only cares about the results and not the means to obtain those results, then you should be outraged! If you believe in right and wrong, then you should be questioning the results of the Franken recount - big time!
Apparently a large majority of Washington voters disagree with your perspective. In their rematch in the last election Gregoire kicked Rossi's butt quite strongly. How would that happen if the fraud you assert was as clear as you claim? The answer is that the fraud claim is only held by a small subset of extremely partisan die-hards.
I live here in MN and followed the recount process very closely. It was a very clean, secure, methodical and transparent process. The only part with which I strongly disagreed was the MN Supreme Court's decision that the improperly rejected absentee ballots had to be approved by both camps in order for them to be opened and counted. There was no reason for the candidates to have any say on individual ballots. That should have been left to election officials and the canvassing board. Regardless, Coleman ended up rejecting a larger number of ballots (the absentee ballots strongly favored Franken overall) so that decision probably worked in his favor and he still lost.
The process was as good as human beings could make it. I feel comfortable that they determined who actually received the most votes. For the record, I was expressing the same confidence in the process three or four weeks ago when I thought it looked as though Coleman would prevail.
I live in Oregon and hear a lot of Washington politics. Haven't heard this one. Do you have a source and a link? Were you personally involved?
Do you have a source and a link?
www.straightouttamybutt.com
OK, so you're proud of your sources. All I know is that Franken wouldn't steal anything--he's a Democrat, the party of Bernie Madoff.
Nobody's saying he couldn't. The point is that there's no evidence to suggest that he's done anything wrong.
If this is what happened in Washington, it has NOTHING to do with the recount in Minnesota, at all.
When votes are counted (Minnesota 2008), the Democrat wins. When votes are not counted (Florida 2000), the Republican wins. In 2000, Bush was appointed president by a 5 to 4 vote. Naturally, Republicans prefer a system where the winner is appointed, and the people's votes don't count -- so why bother counting them? Franken behaved very badly by insisting that all the votes be counted.