Franken, Fritz visit Harry Brown’s on Faribault Daily News

By: quizkid on 1/17/10
I didn't and won't vote for either candidate, but based upon what others have posted, I thought Mr. Franken was a wacked out far leftist communist. He's so wacked, that about half of the bills he's sponsored are co-sponsored by republicans. So why did he help a capitalist? To get @ more of his profits via taxes, yeah, that's it.

I also find the guilt by association leveled against Engbrecht for appearing with his party's elected senator (Franken) laughable. Let's see .... Gov. Body appeared in Predator with Gov. Terminator, therefore they must be political identical twins. No, Twins was Arnold and DeVito, therefore DiVito and Jesse are political cousins?

By: averageguy on 1/17/10
It's too bad Al and Patti didn't try to save the Woolen Mills from extinction. I'm sure those employees wished someone would have stepped up to the plate for them!

By: quizkid on 1/17/10
There was no saving the woolen mills. You can not run a business using 1900's plant and machinery in particular and 1950's business plans at best.

Politicians, in these cases didn't determine who survived and who didn't. The Woolen Mills was a dead sheep. H. Browns was politicians cutting through a bunch of corporate bureaucratic bs. Which is what politicians seem to do best in this - you wash my hands and I'll wash yours - political machinery called Washington.

By: secretsquirrel on 1/17/10
NEWS FLASH:
GM has announced a contract with the Al Franken for President committe for a fleet of clown cars to be purchased with this years stimulus money!
The cars will be purchased through the Harry Brown dealership and distributed to clown-politicians across America. Patty Fritz will be driving a hybrid version of the vehicle to and from the capital to highlight the plight of unemployed clowns throughout the American political field.
This message has been brought to you by S.A.S.S. (Squirrels Against Stupid Senators)
This article proves how dedicated Patty is to this district. She made a public appearance with Al. ;) Sorry Patty, just couldn't resist the barb.

By: secretsquirrel on 1/18/10
For what it's worth I think that the idea of these two coming by and lending some support to Harry Brown's is a good thing.
It's not a matter of picking and choosing which businesses should succeed, it is a matter of not allowing a viable business to go down the tubes because a company that has been bailed out with public money should allow a healthy and profitable franchise to take down/harm even more businesses (those businesses that depend upon part of their income through Harry's).

quizzkid - you once again nailed this one.

By: Consider on 1/18/10
I don't think so squirrel.
Private businesses should be allowed to make a huge profit, and they should be allowed to go out of business. The auto companies should not have been bailed out in the first place. If that had not been done, then the company and it's franchisees should operate without government intervention. I understand the government intervention after the bailout, but it is once again allowing politicians to decide which businesses are worth saving. Most of us on this board have expressed great mistrust in politicians - why would we trust them here?

By: quizkid on 1/18/10
Because Mr. Brown trusted them and it's his business - not ours. Consider, we live in the here and now - the problem is - they were bailed out, it's water under the bridge. Mr. Brown trusted the politicians to get through some bologna on his behalf. Mr. Brown did what he thought he had to to save his business, apparently at great risk dealing with these politicians.

By: Consider on 1/18/10
Kid - trust whichever politician you want to trust. The problem is most of us will not get more than a canned response from any of them. I don't think this required trust by Mr. Brown, it required having some political influence himself to get a US Senator to do his bidding. Nothing against Mr. Brown - he is operating within the "here and now" as you say. However, when the next election comes, whether intended or not, he "owes" these politicians.
I go back to my main point, expanded a bit. None of us should depend on or benefit from our politicians. Government has its role, and it should not be interferfing in private companies.

By: quizkid on 1/18/10
Consider --- Where did I say that I trusted a politician? If you've read any of my posts in the past you'd know I despise politicians. Please reread my comments above!

I don't trust any politician (from local, county, state, national & UN) to do anything other than represent their own interests and those that provide them campaign contributions, who are corporations

Mr. Brown had to have put some of HIS trust into the two he dealt with. That's his prerogative.

If I had my way, there would not have been ANY bailout. Hitting rock bottom was probably the only way to wake everyone up (@ great a great cost for the nation). But, Washington did and we haven't hit rock bottom, I think, yet.

So, don't get me wrong, I try and deal with the cards we've been dealt. I can't go back and play what if. It's been done, we have no real idea what the after effects will be. Heck, I complain that they even tax companies. Taxes are just an overhead cost to the companies - with the tax costs passed onto the consumers. But I bet if you repealed their taxes - they wouldn't lower their prices.

By: Consider on 1/18/10
Kid - I wasn't saying there was a politician you trust - just that you COULD trust any whom you choose. And yes, Mr. Brown also has that right. The problem is, as I said before, politicians should not have the power or authority to sway a private business. Since politicians will act in their own personal interest, their powers should be more limited, eliminating our need to trust them on so many issues.
As to the bailouts - All who have them, of all political persuasion, should be voted out of office if they run for re-election.

By: bpaukert on 1/18/10
It's sad to me that GM is taken over by the government, then the new GM (run by the government) decides which dealerships get to stay open and which have to close. At first, they decide that this particular dealership should close....then members of that same government swoop in and supposedly save the day for that business they were about to close....It's just backwards and it can be looked at as nothing more than the party in power working to create more Democrat voters. "Elect us, we saved your jobs (after we almost took them away)."

Just another way of making more people dependent on government. The only people this benefits are liberal Republican and Democrat politicians.

By: quizkid on 1/18/10
Consider - we, as a nation, have abdicated that power you speak of "the power or authority to sway a private business" to Washington. The $100,000 question is - How are we going to get it back or taken away from Washington?

One way may be to limit campaign contributions and expenditures. It's argued that doing so limits free speech.

Another option may be limiting the campaign season as the UK does?

And there is term limits?

I don’t like what you point out either, but it’s the reality of our times. A stark reality that we need to change as a nation. I struggle with how it can be accomplished.

By: secretsquirrel on 1/18/10
I suppose I can try to explain my reasoning considering the fact that I have always opposed government involvement in private business:
I have never advocated government involvement in private business. So, in that respect, I agree with consider.
When the stimulus/bailout money was being doled out to GM initially, I was (and AM) against the program, seeing it as diddling with the laws of nature(business) and nothing good ever comes of that.
The issue I have now is the simple fact that there are billions of dollars invested in GM at this point and I think it's folly to lose even more money by letting a dealership like Harry's go down the tubes on priciple.
You want to know what's even more irritating to me?
I don't even LIKE Harry Brown's and I can't stand Al Franken! LOL So, I guess I can honestly say that my position is born of pure pragmatism and has nothing to do with party politics or emotion. It's a waste of money to let them die on the vine.
The money has already been spent, it seems wise (nauseating but wise) to try to keep as much of the economy alive as possible after doing so.
As for the next election.... Yes, I am certainly going to look at those who advocated this whole spend us into wealth program. How utterly stupid.

By: txpyr on 1/18/10
I would assume certificates with the pictures of dead presidents and founding fathers on them

By: bpaukert on 1/19/10
No limits on campaign contributions because of the free speech issue...however, the candidates should have to clearly disclose who their donors are so voters will know who is pushing that politician. I don't care if china wants to donate to candidates as long as we voters get to see that candidate x took loads of money from china. They can take the contribution but do so at their own peril.

By: secretsquirrel on 1/19/10
Another of my old ideas:
How about NO contributions?
How about ALL money contributed goes into a general fund and all candidates receive equal shares?
Rules:
1. All candidates must make the same appearances at the same time.
2. All candidates' media representation must be balanced (same number of TV ads, magazines, newspapers etc.)
3. No independent speeches to special interest groups unless the other candidates attend and speak.
Basically, level the playing field and allow voters to see all of the candidates in one place answering the same questions. It would eliminate the advantage of an incumbent over a new comer and keep the race focused on the candidates and the issues.
Communist? Socialist? Democratic? Draw your own conclusions but political races, like criminal cases are sometimes won simply be out spending your opponent and that's simply wrong.

By: EditorJaci on 1/19/10
Rudycat, your comment was removed as it was in poor taste.

By: secretsquirrel on 1/19/10
Simple is better.
Too bad I seem incapable of accomplishing that with my comments...

By: Consider on 1/20/10
squirrel and kid -
You are both missing a MAJOR problem with what you are suggesting. You could enforce a balance in appearances, ads, and everything else - including reporting. But you cannot regulate what will be reported unless you wish to suspend our constitutional rights to free speech, including freedom of the press. When the candidates (and parties, and special interests, and anyone else) are limited in their speech, then the only voice that remains is that of the media, which is NEVER an unbiased source.
Even limiting donations has been a mistake. It allows those with their own money to communicate but not those who depend on the support of others.
The best "solution" is to allow any and all funding, any and all communication. A requirement to fully disclose, immediately, where every dime comes from would seem fine to me.