Say Anything Blog

Personally, I find the fact that he’s a tax cheat who actively defended an old boss who stole from a childrens’ charity a lot more disturbing than this, but everyone’s got their pet peeves I guess.

WASHINGTON - Senate candidate Al Franken ‘s satirical and explicit take on virtual sex and other topics, published in Playboy magazine eight years ago, is drawing concern instead of laughter from some Minnesota Democrats.

Rep. Betty McCollum, who supported the comedian’s rival Mike Ciresi until he dropped out of the race for the party’s nomination for the Senate, complained Thursday that she and other Minnesota Democrats will be on the same November ballot as a candidate “who has pornographic writings that are indefensible.”

“Do they spend all of their time defending him, or do they spend their time talking about issues that are important to this election?” McCollum told The Associated Press in an interview. “The whole story was a shocking surprise.”

So what exactly was in this satirical piece?

Two other Minnesota Democrats in the House, Keith Ellison and Tim Walz, also expressed concerns about the 2000 satirical article that Republicans began circulating last week. None of the critical House members called on Franken to step aside.

At one point in the Playboy piece titled “Porn-O-Rama!” Franken called the Internet a “terrific learning tool,” writing that his 12-year-old son was able to use it for a sixth-grade report on bestiality.

Right.  Because jokes about twelve-year-olds looking at bestiality porn on the internet are funny.

On a related note, I actually think Franken’s nomination to run against Norm Coleman for one of Minnesota’s Senate seats is a microcosm of the national campaign for the White House.  Franken is about as far-left a liberal as you’re going to find.  He’s been entertaining liberals for years by making cracks about Bush.  He’s as smooth as any entertainment industry veteran, and so when he wanted to get serious about politics his fellow liberals went ahead and nominated him.

Now they’re regretting it, because they’re realizing that what plays well on barely-listened-to liberal talk radio shows doesn’t exactly play well with mainstream American voters.

Obama has the same problem.  He’s charismatic.  Charming.  Very smooth in front of a crowd and he’s black, so nominating him assuages years of white liberal guilt.  But once again, Democrats are going to find that smarmy one-liners about the Bush administration and soaring rhetoric about vague ideals like “hope” and “change” are all well and good when you’re running for a nomination issued by a bunch of liberals, but the appeal of such things to mainstream voters is going to be limited.