Not because we need another Democratic senator, but because we need this one. Al Franken is surprisingly insightful and refreshingly direct, so much so that it'd be hard to believe if you haven't read either of his most recent two books.
He's no Michael Moore, swinging a blunt instrument so wildly that he damages anyone in the middle. Al Franken is funny, of course, but also wise.
In Lies, for instance, he lays out several sensible rules for truth-telling that any politician, on either side, would do well to adopt. Here are two:
1) Do your research well.
Ann Coulter complained that when Jesse Jackson gave an unwise speech on Christmas Day in 1994, on British TV, the New York Times did not report his raving about fascism in South Africa.
Her research method? A search of the Times archives for "Jesse Jackson and Fascism and South Africa" produces no documents."
"Well, yeah," say Franken. But searching for "Jesse Jackson and Christmas and Britain" finds the right article.
"Using Coulter's technique, I can prove no newspapaer has ever covered anything. For example I can prove the Washington Times did not cover the incident in which George H. W. Bush threw up on the Japanese prime minister. Searching for 'Bush and Japan and prime minister and lap and cookies and tossed' produces no documents."
2) Compare apples to apples.
In Sean Hannity's atrocious Let Freedom Ring, he includes an chart that should be extraordinary, except that this sort of thing is done all the time. I'll quote Franken:
Hannity's COMPARISON OF DEFENSE BUDGETS
New tanks requested in president's budget:
Reagan-Bush 1986: 840
Clinton-Gore 1996: 0
New tactical aircraft requested in president's budget:
Reagan-Bush 1986: 399
Clinton-Gore 1996: 34
New naval ships requested in president's budget:
Reagan-Bush 1986: 40
Clinton-Gore 1996: 6
This is a table created by a child for children.
Where to start? First of all, in 1996 we didn't need any new tanks. The end of the Cold War had reduced the likelihood of an enormous tank battle across the plains of Central Europe to below zero. How many tanks do you think were requested in the Bush-Cheney budget? Let's make a new chart, keeping Reagan but also comparing the final Clinton-Gore defense budget with the first Bush-Cheney budget.
A BETTER COMPARISON OF DEFENSE BUDGETS
New tanks requested in president's budget:
Reagan-Bush 1986: 840
Clinton-Gore 2001: 0
Bush-Cheney 2002: 0
New tactical aircraft requested in president's budget:
Reagan-Bush 1986: 399
Clinton-Gore 2001: 52
Bush-Cheney 2002: 58
New naval ships requested in president's budget:
Reagan-Bush 1986: 40
Clinton-Gore 2001: 6
Bush-Cheney 2002: 5
Got it, kids? The contrast could not be more stark. Bush-Cheney ordered 11 percent more tactical aircraft than Clinton-Gore, but Clinton-Gore ordered 20 percent more ships than Bush-Cheney.
Did you know that in 1986 we were still fighting the Cold War? In current dollars, we spent $273 billion on defense in 1986 and $266 billion in 1996. Yes, that's 2 percent less, but then again, the Soviet Union no longer existed. The Clinton budget in 1996 was larger than the outgoing budget of the first Bush administration - a budget developed by then DOD Secretary Dick Cheney.
Quickly, let's compare the budgets of Lincoln and Reagan.
COMPARISON OF DEFENSE BUDGETS
New horses requested in president's budget:
Lincoln 1864: 188,718
Reagan 1984: 3
Why did Reagan gut our military?
It's more than just funny: it's smart, persuasive, and clear. Couldn't we use more Senators like that?
"New horses requested in president's budget:
ReplyDeleteLincoln 1864: 188,718
Reagan 1984: 3
Why did Reagan gut our military?"
Hilarious!