Vote Democratic if you value your children's lives

I recently learned about this ad (via), which shows a couple from Minnesota (the Andersons) whose son was killed in Iraq, blaming his death on Senator Norm Coleman's support of the war.  The purpose of the ad is to get you to vote for Al Franken, who would—we're apparently intended to assume—have acted differently.  Wouldn't he?  Let's compare some quotes from the ad with Franken's own words:

Ad: I don't blame the Army for our son's death.  I just blame the bad policies on President Bush, Norm Coleman, who voted for this.

Franken: I would have voted for the resolution [...]

Ad: I have no faith in Norm Coleman. He has no ability to make up his own mind.

Franken: I think I would have voted for the use of force because I would have believed Colin Powell.

Ad: If Norm Coleman would have stood up to the president and said, "This is not a good idea," maybe he would have listened.

Franken: I neither spoke out advocating the war or against the war.

Or in other words, if Franken had been in office in 2002 he'd have done just what Coleman did, and so this couple's son would still be just as dead.  And the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that produced the ad is led by Harry Reid and Charles Schumer—both of whom voted to give Bush the authority to attack Iraq.  Just like Norm Coleman.  But why should inconvenient facts like those stop them from exploiting this couple's loss?  After all, there are Democrats to elect.

To put it another way: if Franken had been in office in 2002 and had cast the vote he says he would have cast, do you think the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee would have sought out these people in 2008 so they could throw their grief up on a TV screen to push for Franken's reelection?  Call me crazy, but I somehow think it wouldn't have happened that way.  No, I think the Andersons could have written, phoned, emailed, faxed, text messaged and smoke signalled the DSCC night and day for months on end, and they wouldn't have gotten so much as a form letter in response.  Their grief would have become inconvenient rather than so very useful.

Which leaves me with the question: are the Democrats just cynical, exploitative, opportunistic, slimy bastards?  Or are they...uhh...hmm.  I can't seem to come up with a second option.

Comments

[Jonathan Versen]

Didn't the last senator from Minnesota who opposed the war die in a plane crash shortly thereafter? Maybe that's a bit besides the point, but I don't see either Franken or Coleman so much as holding a candle to him.

Here's some "humor" you'll enjoy: Brad at S,N! says that if Obama supports the 700 billion bailout, he won't vote for him. Gasp!

Look how many assholes predictably pounce on him for such heresy. Why, you'd almost think their hysterics betray their own bad consciences.

[John Caruso]

My favorite part was this:

To solve this without giving away three quarters of a trillion dollars to the bankers who created this mess,

1. Put a price floor under residential property by bailing out homeowners in default and by buying up unused houses.

Yeah, that's it—make sure the bubble stays nicely inflated, so we all pay the price in perpetuity.

[cemmcs]

Franken was also an enthusiastic supporter of the pro-war Kerry who was advocating for a troop surge during the 2004 election.

[John Caruso]

cemmcs: Absolutely true—though Franken is a pure Democratic partisan, so the sentence "Franken was an enthusiastic supporter of _______" is essentially always true as long as the blank is filled with a Democratic name. Though to be fair, 90% of the delegates at the 2004 Democratic convention opposed the Iraq war, so cognitive dissonance is all but mandatory for these folks and Franken's nothing special.

The guy is funny, but seriously, I can barely stand him.

[angryman@24:20]

My children are trying to kill me; I consider it self defense voting for the Republicans.