I know this is supposed to be good news, but really — Al Franken? I guess he was better than the alternative, but he is no Paul Wellstone.
Author: hankkalet
Hank Kalet is a poet and freelance journalist. He is the economic needs reporter for NJ Spotlight, teaches journalism at Rutgers University and writing at Middlesex County College and Brookdale Community College. He writes a semi-monthly column for the Progressive Populist. He is a lifelong fan of the New York Mets and New York Knicks, drinks too much coffee and attends as many Bruce Springsteen concerts as his meager finances will allow. He lives in South Brunswick with his wife Annie.
View all posts by hankkalet
Hank Kalet 
Franken is the real deal, he was an acolyte of Wellstone and he will carry on the torch of Wellstone's legacy. Franken is a very intelligent guy and he is committed to making government more accountable to the people. I predict that he'll be a great senator, he's very serious about this new gig.He's fed up with rightwingnutism and all the GOP ultra conservative Neanderthals in the senate and house. He will do a good job.
> Franken … … will do a good jobWhile we may differ on the definition of \”good\”, I'm confident that the \”system\” will NOT ONLY prevent him from doing \”good\” (regardless of the definition), I'm positive it will ransform him from what you think he is INTO the crass politician that they all become. Let's watch: (1) feathering his own nest; (2) rewarding his friends; (3) punishing his enemies. Argh!I continue to advocate to a repeal of the direct election of senators. Return to the original vision of the dead old white guys. Democracy is dangerous to liberty. Argh!
Oh my God, dear sweet Jesus. You want the state legislatures to select our senators, as it was until 1913. When it was left up to state legislatures there were a whole host of problems. There was so much squabbling in some state legislatures that they could not even get together to send a senator to DC for YEARS. Because of increasing partisanship and strife, many state legislatures failed to elect senators for prolonged periods. From wikipedia:\”For example, in Indiana the conflict between Democrats in the southern half of the state and the emerging Republican Party in the northern half prevented a Senate election for two years. The aforementioned partisanship led to contentious battles in the legislatures, as the struggle to elect Senators reflected the increasing regional tensions in the lead up to the Civil War.Delaware did not send a senator to Washington for four years.\”This squabbling became even worse after the Civil War.The 17th Amendment changed all that and allowed for the popular vote for senators. No system is perfect, but I prefer the popular vote for Senators.However, I do feel that voting for judges is a travesty. In that case, it is not uncommon for judges to take campaign money from big players which they may have to judge years later. Judges who are elected take campaign money from a whole host of corporate interests, how can such a judge be fair and balanced and impartial? He would have to recuse himself 60% of the time.
Legislatures selecting senators prevents unfunded mandates on states. And, what's wrong with deadlocks and empty seats. Inaction is fine. A la NYS and 31-31 split.