Al Franken Fear Mongering: Warns GOP Congress Would Bring "Truly Dangerous" Agenda

Al Franken proves that having a sense of humor doesn't mean that he's funny. But doggone it, he's good enough, he's smart enough, and people like him.

Once again, the liberal left exposes its duplicitous face. On the one hand, it can all but universally condemn the Tea Party as a bunch of fear-mongerers. On the other hand, it can allow Senator Al Franken his own brand of blatant fear-mongering. In a recent article from The Hill: we find the following statements he made to a convention of liberal activists and bloggers.

"If Republicans take back Congress they'll implement a truly dangerous agenda....Everything is on the table from repealing healthcare reform to privatizing Social Security."

What is a "truly dangerous agenda" to Franken? I suppose the idea of repealing a ponderous, expensive, lobbyist-driven bit of legislation as the healthcare "reform" is dangerous to a leftist ideologue as Franken. Consider that government-run healthcare has steadily lost the support of most Americans since 2007 (Gallup). The majority of Americans do not think that healthcare insurance is the responsibility of the federal government. More Americans also believe that the new healthcare bill will make their healthcare situation worse than better.

Is this a "truly dangerous" position held by the American people? Or is this fear-mongering on Franken's part to inspire liberals to protect legislation that Americans know will hurt them in the long-run? Considering the lop-sided liberal push the healthcare bill, maybe a little GOP moderation and some compromise is a good thing?

As for the concept of privatizing Social Security, the idea is marginal at best. Remember when Bush brought up the idea, it was soundly buried by majority opinion and hurt Bush in the polls. Franken should know that the idea of the privatization of Social Security is politically marginal and may cost Sharron Angle the election in Nevada.

Franken singled out two Republican Senate nominees: Rand Paul in Kentucky, for his questioning of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and Sharron Angle in Nevada, "who can't stop bringing up the prospect of armed revolt."

Here, Franken picks on the two most marginal of conservative candidates, using this as an example of the GOP (which is certainly isn't) and conservatism (which doesn't take into account the majority moderate conservatism). Sure, it's easy to pick on the margins. After all, conservatives have found it easy to marginalize such liberal, and over-the-top ideologues such as Franken. Well, and Nancy Pelosi. And Harry Reid. And Barack Obama. And Eric Holder. And....

"'We have seen what happens when Republicans take control of Congress with a Democratic president and it ain't pretty,' the senator said.

Let's see....That would have been during the Clinton administration - a time hailed by liberals as the best of times, where the balance between the executive branch and the legislative created a tension of compromise that created a decade of sustained economic growth. I guess that shows Americans just how "truly dangerous" having the GOP in Congress can be.

Of course, the GOP lost its course when confronted with a Republican president. This is a good argument, in fact for switching the power in Congress over to the GOP, while Obama is in office. Maybe we can create a new tension of compromise in government?

Franken said the country was 'teetering on the brink of a double-dip recession' and criticized Republicans for eschewing the idea of another stimulus package. 'They hide behind big talk about deficits as if deficits suddenly appeared at noon on Jan. 20, 2009,' he said."

Of course Franken blames the previous power structure on today's ill's but quite frankly, after 18 months of the current administration, I don't think Americans in general will be fooled with the idea that Bush caused the double dip recession. Sure, we can blame the Bush administration for the first recession (admitting that the Democrats have held control of Congress since 2006) but are we going to be gullible enough to think that the Bush administration pulled down the economy in the summer of 2010?

Nor can we point to the first stimulus package as "proof" that massive government spending helped the economy. At best, we have an argument based on lack of evidence: "If we hadn't passed the stimulus bill, the economy would be much worse." Even if we take that lack of evidence as support for the stimulus bill, we can point to the giganormous, current deficit as ultimately detrimental to economic growth and stability.

It's also worth pointing out that while the Bush administration was in power, Democrats "hid behind big talk about deficits." (Well, and the war in Iraq but that doesn't apply to Obama and the war in Afghanistan, does it?) Did the deficit problem go away with the switch to a completely Democrat and leftist liberal administration? Not exactly, if you consider the most recent figures published by The Heritage Foundation:

The actual deficit from 2009 dwarfs any previous Bush deficit and the projected deficit in 2010, as well as subsequent years make Bush an amateur deficit spender.

What this tells us about Franken is more about his leftist ideology and the protection of leftist congressional power than about what the GOP may or may not do winning back seats in Congress. What it should also do is convince Americans that politicians fear monger, not out of feelings for the best interests of the country, but out of feelings for job protection and maintaining power. In this sense, that we must bring down political power wherever it threatens the well being of the US, maybe having a few more Republicans, Tea Partiers, and independents in Congress isn't such a bad thing.