Posted by bigkahunaburger (anonymous) on June 24, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is an opinion that differs with Senator Coleman's always a "wrong value?" It's a wonder I was able to graduate college, considering how "wrong" I seem to be about everything.

Posted by edrule3 (Ed Rule III) on June 24, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Same old and tired rhetoric the Republicans toss around every campaign season. Two issues they love to bring to the forefront are abortion and gun control. Then when the elections are over nothing changes because they are issues that nobody wants to raise while in office. They are quagmires waiting to happen. They are too controversial. Remember pro-life Bush in the POTUS debates? He got in and what changed? Nothing! Except the world is a lot more emptier now than before he got in.

But understand that Democrats don't approve of abortion any more than Republicans, they look at the freedom of choice and privacy aspects as the main issue and generally determine that abortions and guns in homes are choices between the individuals involved and their God. When illegalized, abortions don't subside, they go underground and do more harm than good. It was tried in the 70s. But the Republicans think they can throw this out there during campaigns and try to appeal to everyone's sentiments, and it's purely patronizing when you think about it.

Posted by pilsnerurquel (anonymous) on June 24, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not believing in gun ownership is the LEAST of my concerns. Turning around the economy in Minnesota, repairing our crumbling infrastructure, insuring our uninsured children with health insurance, lowering taxes on the middle class and coming up with a renewable energy policy is what REALLY matters.

One Senator not believing in guns is not going to change anything in Minnesota.

Posted by jchucker (anonymous) on June 25, 2008 at 12:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Holley is correct. Al Franken is personally against having a gun in the house. And, clearly, Mr. Holley favors laws that permit firearms in the home. Mr. Holley also expresses concerns about ties to corporate interests when it comes to politics. That should have been the end of Mr. Holley's statement.

Instead, he links Franken's personal feelings with Franken's so-called corporate interest ties in California and New York. I presume he means to imply that a Senator Franken's votes would be for sale to such unidentified corporate interests.

Let's consider his statements based upon information available to us.

1) In 1996, in chapter 12 as noted by Mr. Holley, private citizen Al Franken cites a study that found that "guns kept in the house for protection are forty-three times more likely to kill a family member than an assailant." Franken's personal objection to bringing a gun into his home is explained with the joke, "Hey, honey, I've brought something into the house that's forty-three times more likely to kill one of us than to do us any good."

2) It's June, 2008. Candidate Al Franken has not issued a statement on his gun control position. So far, if there are any corporate interests funding his campaign, they aren't getting much for their money.

3) So, based upon Franken's statement in 1996, are we to believe that corporate interest ties were the voice behind the private citizen? What leverage would they have been buying?

The excellent comments posted previously point to the real concerns of Minnesotans. Let's not degrade the public discourse by engaging in conjecture and insinuation.

By the way, I share Mr. Holley's concerns for the influence of corporate interests upon politicians. Here are the websites I used to research Franken's endorsements and supporters:
http://www.alfranken.com/content/endorse...
and stand on guns: http://www.OnTheIssues.org/Senate/Al_Fra...

Instead of innuendo, please do the research to determine what ties Mr. Coleman may have to such interests.

Posted by hometown (anonymous) on June 25, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Guns don't kill people, stupid gun owners kill people.

PILSNERurquel I believe had it right. I am far from the left but everything in that statement made total sense. I'm sure that we disagree on many subjects but this was right on. I believe in the right to own a gun and time and time again it has been proven that when you take away guns from the citizens then the ciminals become empowered. My other concern with taking away guns from the citizenry is that a government with total control and no fear of retrobution will surely erode the rights of every American and that to me is unexceptable. I believe Franken is the wrong choice as I believe (JUST MY OPINION) he is far too left for my taste. As for Norm Coleman i'm not that impressed with him either too far to the right. This is exactly why nothing can get done in Washington under a stupid 2 party system. Very frustrating to the average American no matter what side your on.

Posted by ginger_ale1 (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 12:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm a gun owner, a hunter and a Christian... And I'm voting for Franken. Say what you want about his ties to the left and right coasts, he was raised a Minnesotan. He is and Ivy League graduate, and he has He is not the east coast opportunist that Norm Coleman is (whenever I hear his name I feel dirty). There is more than one issue in this campaign and one senator does not have the power to take away the rights of gun owners. You have to be pretty stupid to buy in to the right wing suggestions of a left-wing conspiracy working to remove guns from the homes of American Citizens. It will NEVER happen - but the NRA will no less use this propaganda to raise money.

Look at what has happened since the Bush Administration took over. We were attacked (under his watch). Following 9/11 we had an outpouring of support from throughout the world which Bush lost in his quest to invade Iraq. While Bush proclaimed Mission Accomplished over five years ago, more than 4,000 American troops have died, and over 30,000 have been injured in combat. This pales in comparison to the hundreds-of-thousands of Iraqis who have been killed and displaced by the violence.

During this war we have watched multinational corporations closely tied to members of the administration (i.e. Cheney-Halliburton) profit in the billions of dollars that have been poured into the war. This all occurring while funding has been cut for medicare, early childhood education, veteran's benefits, financial aid etc etc.

I am sick of the arrogance of croynism that has occurred during the reign of "The Shrub." It is time to bring accountability to everyone who has supported this "reign of terror" including Norm Coleman. Hell, I'd give up my guns if someone would come in to office invest hundreds of billions of dollars into our education and healtcare systems.

Posted by hometown (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Al Franken would like to have universl health care for everyone. I disagree. I think universal health care should only be for children ages 1-18. after that then maybe go college and get a job that pays, then pay for your own. I have to pay for mine why on god's green earth should I pay for yours or for people too damn lazy to get a job? I know we need serious health care reform and plans that work for everyone but to have free health care for all would be disastous for everyone. Do you really think you would get the kind of care you do if health care was free for all? Doctor's and staff already have overflowing case loads, imagine if everyone came in everyday for the smallest little scrap or boo boo they got, it would truely be a nightmare. Further it would inevitably be paid for by higher taxes. Further, I have been hearing that we should just keep taxing the rich. Well, they already pay the great majority of the taxes paid in this country period. If "big business" cease to make money and go under so does our economy and then we are truely toast. I agree there should not be so many loopholes for the ultra rich but we need to find a happy medium between them and the rest of America, because truth be told we need each other or we all fold up. The he said she said going on in this country is tiresome and frankly juvenile. And that's why I won't vote for Franken or Coleman because they choose to play this game rather then get anything meaningful done. Third party anyone?

Posted by pilsnerurquel (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey hometown...you realize you already pay for the uninsured through your tax money? It's cheaper for us to pay for universal health insurance and preventative medicine than it is to pay for someone's $100,000 ER bill because they couldn't afford to get an office visit with an M.D. and waited until they were practically dying.

It's like people can't see the forest through the trees. They hear "universal health insurance" and they automatically assume this means they'll be paying thousands of dollars for someone else's doctor visits. In fact, the amount we pay would most likely go DOWN due to the fact that people would be seeking more preventative care instead of waiting until they had to go in for an ER visit they can't afford.

It's time to wake up and realize that we need to see the benefit to the greater good of society by giving EVERYONE health insurance.

Posted by hometown (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Universal Health care would cause health care cost to skyrocket and your individual care to go down. Further, research would to some degree decline because of declining profits, which mean that if the investors take a hit so will everything else and the cost again will get passed along to the taxpayer. I don't like the current system and I thought that a great idea was health care accounts where you contribute x amounts of dollars into a savings account to cover the co pays and the rest is free. But people don't like that because (GOD FORBID)you, the individual, would have to be responsible for it without the help of the government. I don't know what happened in this country but taking care of you and yourself(personal responsibility) used to give people a sense of pride and accomplishment but now it's what can the city, county, state do for me?