Welcome to the Deep Dive. We're the show where
we grab a, well, a monumental career, spread
out all the source material, and really dig into
the surprising facts, the context you actually
need. Yeah, what's behind the headlines. Exactly.
And today, we're deep diving into Alan Stewart
Franken. I mean, here's a figure whose whole
professional life, it almost feels like some
kind of, you know, sociological experiment. Right.
Like what happens when you take this Harvard
educated Pulitzer nominee, actually. Grammy winning
satire icon. Right, right. A comedy giant. And
drop him straight onto the Senate floor. It's
quite the premise. It really is. And the story
itself, well, it's remarkable, but also like
genuinely contradictory, isn't it? Completely.
You've got one of the original writers for Saturday
Night Live. I mean, the creative force behind
some really some of the most influential political
comedy of the last, what, 50 years. Easily. And
then he somehow successfully transitions into
this role as, oh, well, a serious policy driven
legislator. this historic election win. Barely
historic. Incredibly close. Incredibly close.
Yes. And yet his political journey just crashes
and burns, ends in this really rapid, controversial
resignation right in the middle of the, you know.
The seismic shifts of the hashtag Me Too movement.
Yeah, it was fast. So our mission for you, the
learner, is really to unpack that full, complex
story of Al Franken. We're going to trace his
path from being a young guy idolizing these anti
-establishment comedians. Lenny Bruce, Stick
Gregory. Exactly. Through decades spent shaping
comedy and political activism, which then leads
to, well, one of the most... razor thin, legally
fought over election victories in American history.
But Nailbiter doesn't even cover it. Not even
close. And look, we're not going to shy away
from that controversial ending either, or importantly,
the sort of reevaluation that's happened since
he left office. No, we have to cover that. And
the source material we've got, it actually gives
us a pretty clear view across all three major
phases of his life, right? The comedy guy, the
writer, then the progressive activist and author,
and finally, the dedicated senator. So we'll
be looking at how those traits, the ones forged
in that, you know, cutthroat TV world, how they
both maybe prepared him for Washington, but also
ultimately perhaps doomed his time there. Yeah,
it's a fascinating interplay. Okay, let's unpack
this, starting right at the beginning. The architecture
of the man and that launch pad, 30 Rock. So Alan
Stewart Franken. Born in New York City, 1951.
But the sources, they're really quick to say,
look, he's a Minnesotan. Right. Moved there when
he was four, settled in St. Louis Park. Yeah.
But what really jumps out right away is this
kind of contrast between his, like, intellectual
seriousness and where he ended up career -wise,
at least initially. That's a perfect place to
start, actually, because he wasn't just, you
know, the funny guy in the drama club. He graduated
from the Blake School back in 69, and while he
was there, he was disciplined enough to be on
the wrestling team. Wrestling. Huh. Didn't know
that. Yeah. And that that sort of competitive
discipline streak, it definitely carried through
to his academic side. He went to Harvard College,
graduated cum laude in political science in 73.
OK, so poli sci, that's key. It's crucial because
it means he had these really deep roots in political
theory, political structure, long before he ever
wrote a single joke for TV. And you can see how
that grounding kind of shaped the comedy he liked,
right? Yeah. The sources mentioned his heroes
weren't just guys telling punchlines. No, not
at all. They were the figures who challenged
power. Specifically, people like Dick Gregory
and Lenny Bruce. Bruce especially. I mean, he
weaponized humor, didn't he, to just expose corruption,
hypocrisy. Exactly. He saw comedy not just as,
you know, escapism, but as a form of, well, moral
and political commentary. He and his writing
partner, Tom Davis, they were partners for a
long time. A long time, yeah. They actually honed
that kind of politically charged satire at the
Brave New Workshop Theater right there in Minneapolis.
Ah, so they were practicing this deep political
critique way before they hit the national stage.
Way before. And that partnership, Franken and
Davis, that was absolutely integral to the birth
of Saturday Night Live. Absolutely. When they
joined SNL in 75, they weren't just like hired
hands. They were the core. Original writers,
sometimes performers, too. Foundational. And
it's kind of wild to think about the money back
then. The sources confirm it. Their shared salary
for both of them in that first groundbreaking
season, just $350 a week. $350. Between two guys
in New York City. I know. It was truly a ground
floor operation, right? Built on chaos and, well.
Flashes of genius. And they quickly became architects
of that whole show's structure. And his track
record there, it's pretty undeniable. Over his
whole SNL career, he had, what, 15 Emmy nominations?
15 nominations, yeah. And won five Emmys for
writing and producing. So he wasn't just there.
He was actively shaping the cultural output.
Definitely. And his work, it went from the totally
absurd to something almost therapeutic. We probably
need to talk about Stuart Smalley for a second.
Oh, yeah. Stuart Smalley. The soft -spoken, self
-help character. I'm good enough, I'm smart enough,
and doggone it, people like me. That's such an
iconic catchphrase. It is. And the depth of Smalley
is actually kind of fascinating. People often
say Franken created him to gently, you know,
poke fun at the 12 -step recovery movement. Right,
satirize it. But sources close to him also point
out that he drew a lot from his own experiences,
his own therapy, his own self -doubt. Ah, interesting.
So it wasn't just mockery. No, I think the character
really resonated because it tapped into genuine
human insecurity, but filtered through his, you
know, signature satirical lens. It wasn't just
a funny voice. There were layers there. He also
did that whole meta comedy thing that was big
back then, didn't he? Declaring the 1980s the
Al Franken decade. Oh, yeah. The Al Franken decade,
which was funny, mostly because of the just the
sheer brazen ego it projected. Totally. But if
you want the one line. that really cemented his
place in comedy writing history, a line people
still quote, maybe controversially. Has to be
from Point Counterpoint, right? Absolutely. The
sources explicitly confirm Franken wrote that
famous line Dan Aykroyd delivered, Jane, you
ignorant slut. Wow. Okay. That perfectly captures
the whole vibe of that segment, doesn't it? Combative,
totally politically incorrect, but somehow hilarious
at the time. Exactly. You know, even though he
was his core pillar of the show for 20 years,
75 to 95, basically. Yeah, a long run. His time
there was punctuated by conflict, wasn't it?
Which kind of seems to reflect that competitive
nature we talked about earlier. There were two
big departures, both tied to power struggles.
Yeah, the first one back in 1980 really shows
his willingness to. bite the hand that feeds
him, so to speak. What happened there? He did
this weekend update commentary piece called A
Limo for a Lamo. And it was just a direct, absolutely
brutal attack on the NBC president at the time,
Fred Silverman, who was pretty controversial
himself. He went on weekend update and called
the head of the network. A total unequivocal
failure. Yeah. Used charts and everything to
show NBC's terrible ratings right there on air.
Wow. Okay. Didn't pull punches. Not at all. And
the consequence was immediate. Silverman blocked
Lorne Michaels' plan to make Franken the new
show producer. So Franken left, along with Lorne.
Ah, okay. So that competitive spirit, that willingness
to just challenge authority publicly, that definitely
shows up later in his political career. Absolutely.
It's a defining trait. And his second exit in
1995 was just as messy. He basically left in
protest because he didn't get the weekend update
anchor job. You thought he'd earned it, right?
And they gave it to Norm MacDonald instead. Exactly.
It was a very public power struggle over that
coveted chair. It just illustrates that whole
internal dynamic. He was brilliant, competitive,
fiercely loyal to his people. But, yeah, maybe
his pride could be a stumbling block. Yeah, seems
like it. But amidst all that chaos of 70s and
80s TV, there was also this moment of, like,
personal reckoning the sources mentioned he admitted
to using illegal drugs back then yeah cocaine
among other things while working on the show
which you know wasn't uncommon in that scene
at that time true but he also clearly stated
he stopped completely stopped after his colleague
john belushi died from that fetal overdose right
that's a really powerful moment of like self
-correction, isn't it? It shows this pivot towards
personal seriousness, maybe moving away from
some of the more destructive parts of the entertainment
world. And it kind of foreshadows that huge shift
towards political responsibility that was coming
up next in Act Two. Exactly. That pivot to seriousness,
it wasn't just personal. It really accelerated
into his whole professional identity. Act Two,
this is where we see him transition from writing
sketches to being a full -time political commentator.
Right. And he's using that comedic voice. But
now it's like a razor sharp tool for progressive
activism. He totally transformed himself. He
started taking on specific targets, mostly on
the right, in print. And his books, they weren't
just funny throwaway. No, they were bestsellers.
New York Times bestsellers. Yeah. Titles like
Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot and other observations
back in 96. And then lies and the lying liars
who tell them. A fair and balanced look at the
right in 2003. These were seriously researched,
fact -checked political critiques just wrapped
in his trademark satire. They were detailed.
And what's really fascinating and kind of speaks
to his unique ability to bridge that gap between
serious policy and entertainment. He won two
Grammys for these books. Two Grammys, yeah. For
the audiobooks, which he read himself. Best comedy
album for one, best spoken word album for the
other. That's not typical for political books.
Not at all. It just highlights that he'd found
this unique sweet spot. He could make serious
political arguments digestible, memorable, even
funny enough for the entertainment industry to
recognize. By still being substantive enough
to really challenge the political establishment.
Precisely. And speaking of challenging the establishment...
That second book lies in the lying liars. That
led to one of the most brilliant, though maybe
unintentionally so, marketing wins in publishing
history, the Fox News showdown. Oh, yeah, this
was gold. Fox News actually sued him, right?
They did. They filed a lawsuit claiming he infringed
on their registered trademark, fair and balanced,
just by using it in the subtitle of the book.
Which, I mean, the subtitle was. A fair and balanced
look at the right. Right. The whole point was
the irony. Exactly. The sources really emphasized
just how absurd the legal claim was on its face.
And the judge thought so, too. Oh, yeah. The
federal judge basically threw it out, calling
the lawsuit wholly without merit. Which, of course,
instantly just validated Franken's entire point
about conservative media overreach. But the lawsuit
had slowly backfired spectacularly on Fox. Massively.
All the media coverage generated by a lawsuit,
all this free press detailing the fight between
Fox News and Al Franken, it just propelled the
book straight to number one on Amazon. Sales
shot up. So, Fox, trying to suppress his critique,
actually ended up giving it the biggest possible
platform. Textbook Streisand effect applied to
political satire. just perfect so after that
book success he decides to take his progressive
commentary to the radio waves Trying to counter
that perceived conservative dominance in talk
radio. Yeah. In 2004, he launches The Al Franken
Show on the new progressive network Air America
Radio. And initially, he even used the title
The O 'Franken Factor. Nice little poke at Bill
O 'Reilly there. Definitely cheeky. But his motivation
here, it seems pretty clear from the sources,
wasn't really about entertainment anymore. It
was pure activism. Yeah. There's that quote from
him in 2004 where he says, basically, I'm doing
this because I want to use my energies to get
Bush unelected. That's the language of a political
operative, right? Not just a detached comedian
making jokes. So this radio show, which ran until
2007, it really feels like the final training
ground before he made the leap to actually running
for office himself. And that transition, that
decision to run, it was heavily influenced by
one person in particular, wasn't it? Deeply influenced,
yeah, by the late Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone.
Wellstone was Franken's political mentor. His
role model. Franken really saw him as the absolute
epitome of a progressive public servant. Like
the gold standard for him. Totally. And the specific
thing that pushed him to finally run, the sources
say, was actually a direct challenge to Wellstone's
legacy. What was that? The Republican incumbent
senator, Norm Coleman, who had actually taken
Wellstone's seat after Wellstone died, Coleman
made this comment that he considered himself
a 99 % improvement over Wellstone. Oof. Okay,
Franklin wouldn't have liked that. No, he apparently
took that as a deep personal affront to the kind
of progressive politics he really admired in
Wellstone. So the wheels start turning. He announces
he's moving back to Minnesota in 2005. Which
is a crucial step, right? You've got to establish
residency, reconnect with the state before you
can run. He wasn't just thinking about it. He
was actively executing this professional shift.
And he set up a PAC. Right. The Midwest Values
PAC. He did. And it wasn't just about raising
money for himself. It was also a way to support
other candidates and causes that kind of reflected
Wellstone's progressive ideals. And by early
2007, that peg had already pulled in over a million
dollars. So it shows he was serious about laying
the financial and political groundwork. And his
policy positions were starting to solidify, too,
moving towards a clearer progressive platform
as he geared up for the Senate run. Yeah. Back
in 2004, he'd already publicly favored moving
towards a universal health care system. And on
the big issue of the time, the Iraq War, he kind
of navigated this complex political evolution.
How so? Well, initially, he actually supported
the war, said he'd been convinced by Colin Powell's
presentation to the U .N., which a lot of people
were at the time. True. But that support definitely
flipped later. By 2007, he was actively opposing
the troop surge and was calling for Congress
to actually defund the war, but without setting
specific exit timetables. OK, so that's kind
of a nuanced position for a progressive candidate,
right? Right. Supporting the initial decision,
but then strongly opposing the continuation.
It is strategically tricky, yeah. But it showed
he wasn't afraid to evolve on a major issue and
make a tough policy call, even if it wasn't perfectly
clean. He was clearly calculating, fundraising,
testing the political waters. Being just a media
personality to a really serious contender for
one of the most powerful offices in the country.
Yeah. And all of this just perfectly set the
stage for Act Three, which wasn't just an election.
It was, I mean, a political saga that basically
redefined the term too close to call. Act Three.
The senator of 312 votes. OK, so Franken announces
he's running for Senate on his very last Air
America show, February 2007. Fast forward to
November 2008, and he is locked in what just
becomes this absolute political thriller against
the incumbent, Norm Coleman. We really need to
convey the tension here because this wasn't just
close. It was a legislative marathon. Excruciating
is probably the right word. So election night,
the initial reports come in and they show Coleman
leading by over 700 votes. OK, maybe a bit close,
but looks like Coleman won. Right. But then.
But then once the official results are actually
certified, the margin just evaporates. Coleman
is ahead by only 215 votes out of nearly three
million cast. Wow. 215 votes out of three million.
Yeah. It's a point zero one percent difference,
which under Minnesota state law automatically
triggers a statewide recount. And this wasn't
just pushing a button on a machine recount. This
was hands on. Oh, completely hands on. Highly
politicized, intense public scrutiny. Every single
ballot was being examined by lawyers and representatives
from both campaigns. And they're challenging
everything, right? Like a stray mark here, an
oval not filled in perfectly there. Everything.
The atmosphere must have been just incredibly
tense. The whole state, probably the whole country,
was watching this unfold ballot by ballot. And
this back and forth, this scrutiny. It actually
leads the state canvassing board to initially
certify the results with Franken ahead now. Yeah,
by a slim 225 votes. But that was really only
the beginning of the fight. Coleman immediately
filed an election contest. So court. Yep. Kicked
off a multi -month trial in front of a special
three -judge panel. And this trial, this becomes
the real turning point, doesn't it? Because the
panel makes a key decision about certain ballots.
They do. They ordered the counting of 351 specific
disputed absentee ballots. These were ballots
that had previously been rejected by local officials,
often for just minor technical reasons. Like
maybe a signature didn't perfectly match or something
like that. Exactly. Things like that. And that
tiny stack, just 351 ballots, it changed everything.
How much did it change the count by? Once those
were opened and counted, they ultimately raised
Franken's lead to 312 votes. 312. Just think
about that. 312 votes deciding a U .S. Senate
seat out of almost 3 million cast. It's staggering.
It really underscores the power of every single
vote, doesn't it? And every single legal challenge,
I guess. Absolutely. But the legal drama wasn't
over even then. It dragged on for 246 days after
the election. Coleman appealed the result all
the way up to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Eight
months. The seat was empty for eight months.
Incredible, right? The tension just held for
that long. Finally, June 30th, 2009, the Minnesota
Supreme Court unanimously, unanimously rejects
Coleman's final appeal. And that was it. That
was it. Franken was sworn in just a week later,
July 7th, 2009, and he took the oath of office
using Paul Wellstone's Bible. Wow. A victory
won through sheer grinding legal persistence.
Absolutely. So after all that chaos getting into
the Senate, the sources really detail Franken
making this very deliberate choice. He completely
pivoted away from the media spotlight, away from
his comedy persona. He wanted to be seen as a
workhorse, right? Not a show horse. Exactly.
He focused intensely. on policy, on constituent
work. He really wanted to be taken seriously.
And did it work? Was he effective? He actually
proved to be exceptionally effective, especially
considering he started as the absolute most junior
member of the Senate. His very first bill, which
he co -wrote with a Republican senator, Johnny
Isakson. Bipartisan, okay. Yeah, right out of
the gate. It was the Service Dogs for Veterans
Act. It set up a VA program to pair disabled
veterans with service dogs. Getting that bipartisan
win so early was really crucial for establishing
his credibility. That makes sense. But his biggest
impact, according to the sources, was really
in major legislation, particularly the Affordable
Care Act, right? The ACA. Oh, undoubtedly. He
authored this absolutely crucial amendment called
the Medical Loss Ratio or MLR. And this is like
a textbook example of really complex policy having
a massive direct benefit for consumers. Explain
the MLR. What did it actually do? OK, so before
the MLR, insurance companies could spend a huge
chunk of your premium dollars on things like
administrative overhead, massive CEO salaries,
marketing, whatever, instead of actual medical
care. Right. Money not going to health care.
Exactly. Franken's MLR amendment basically forced
a level of consumer protection. It mandated that
insurance companies had to spend a minimum percentage
of the premiums they collected, 80 percent for
small group plans, 85 percent for large group
plans, directly on health care costs. 80 or 85
cents of every dollar. Precisely. And the distinction
here is critical. It wasn't just a suggestion.
It had teeth. If the insurers didn't hit that
threshold, if they spent too much on overhead
or profit. They had to pay it back. They had
to issue rebates directly back to consumers or
employers. It fundamentally changed the basic
economics of the health insurance industry in
the U .S. Wow. That sounds like a fight. Oh,
it was fiercely fought by the insurance lobby,
which kind of tells you how effective it was.
And this kind of work, you know, technical, complex,
focused on protecting regular people from big
financial institutions, that really defined his
Senate tenure. It was a million miles away from
writing SNL sketches. Definitely a different
world. He also took on issues around workplace
justice, didn't he? Something about mandatory
arbitration. Yeah, he was apparently deeply moved
by the story of Jamie Lee Jones. She was a woman
who alleged she was sexually assaulted while
working for a defense contractor overseas, KBR.
But her employment contract had this mandatory
arbitration clause, which basically prevented
her from suing the company in open court. Ah,
so she was forced into this private system. Exactly.
Mandatory arbitration forces employees to settle
disputes, including really serious ones like
sexual assault and discrimination claims, completely
out of court, behind closed doors, often in these
private arbitration systems that can be heavily
favored towards the company. Got it. So what
does Franken do? He championed what became known
as the Jones Amendment. It was attached to the
2010 Defense Appropriations Bill. And what it
did was limit the use of mandatory arbitration
for defense contractors. These huge companies
that get billions in government contracts in
cases involving workplace sexual assault, harassment,
and discrimination. So it allowed those employees
to actually take these powerful companies to
a real court. Yes. to a public court of law.
It was a massive win for employee rights and
corporate accountability, especially against
these really powerful government contractors.
That's significant. And, you know, for all this
seriousness, he hadn't totally lost his touch
with the public, had he? There was that viral
video from the Minnesota State Fair. Oh, yeah,
2009. That video became famous because he was
shown engaging with this group of pretty angry
Tea Party protesters about the details of the
health care reform bill. And why did it go viral?
Specifically because of the civility he maintained
throughout the whole thing. He was patient. He
was focused on the actual policy details. He
was respectful, even though he was dealing with
this really energized, hostile crowd. Huh. It's
like it. Perfectly captured that dual identity,
right? The competitive policy wonk who could
still connect or at least engage patiently using
just facts. Exactly. And by 2014, the transformation
seemed complete. The sources confirm his reelection
victory that year was decisive. He got 53 .2
percent of the vote. Which was a big jump from
the 312 vote squeaker in 08. Huge jump. He'd
gone from being a top Republican target in 2008
to being seen as a heavy favorite by 2014. He'd
successfully established himself as this reliable,
effective legislator, a serious fundraiser, a
serious policy guy in the Senate. Yeah. It really
seemed like he'd made the transition permanent.
No one, absolutely no one saw the sudden collapse.
It was literally just around the corner. Which
brings us, yeah, to act four, the sudden and
for many tragic end to this historic political
career in 2017. The sources really lay out this
rapid, almost dizzying chain of events that started
with that first public allegation in November
2017. Yeah, that first accusation came from Leanne
Tweeden, who's a radio broadcaster and former
model. She alleged that back during a USO tour
rehearsal in 2006, Franken had forcibly kissed
her. What were the specifics, she alleged? She
described it pretty vividly, said he came at
me, put his hand on the back of my head, mashed
his lips against mine, and aggressively stuck
his tongue in my mouth. She said she pushed him
away and felt disgusted and violated. Okay, that's
a serious allegation. And then there's the photo.
And then there was the photo, which became really
the defining image of the whole scandal. It accompanied
her accusation. Describe the photo again. It
was taken during that same 2006 USO tour. It
shows Franken mugging for the camera, holding
his hands up as if grabbing or hovering just
above Tweeden's chest area while she was asleep
on a military transport plane. She was fully
clothed, wearing body armor and a helmet at the
time. And Franken's response to that photo? He
responded quickly, called it a failed attempt
at a joke, said it wasn't funny, admitted he
shouldn't have done it. But he also maintained
that his memory of the rehearsal kiss she described
was very different from hers. Okay. But that
first accusation, plus that really damaging photo,
it seemed to open the floodgates, didn't it?
It really did. The sources note that within weeks,
seven additional women came forward with their
own accounts. These mostly detailed a range of
what they described as inappropriate touching,
usually during photo ops at public events or
political gatherings. What kind of touching were
they describing? Well, the range included multiple
women who alleged that he grabbed or squeezed
their clothed buttocks while posing for photos.
Another allegation came from an army veteran,
Stephanie Kemplin, who claimed Franken put his
hand on the side of her breast and held it there
for maybe five to ten seconds during a photo
op on a USO tour in Iraq back in 2003. Another
woman reported getting an open mouth, sort of
wet kiss on the cheek after she turned her face
away during a handshake. This was after an appearance
on his radio show in 2006. So a pattern alleged
mainly around photo lines and public interactions.
How did Franken respond to these additional claims?
He issued a broader apology then, saying he regretted
making some women feel uncomfortable, acknowledging
he had crossed a line for some women in certain
interactions. But he also consistently maintained
that he remembered some of these encounters very
differently than the way they were being described.
And he supported an ethics investigation, right?
Yes. He immediately said he welcomed and would
cooperate fully with a Senate Ethics Committee
investigation. which was initiated fairly quickly
with support from leaders in both parties. But
the ethics committee investigation never finished,
did it? No. And this is really the critical juncture
where. the political momentum just completely
overtook the standard investigative process.
What happened? The sources confirm that within
a very short time frame, more than two dozen
Democratic senators, led very publicly by Senator
Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, called for Franken's
immediate resignation before the ethics committee
had done its work, before it reached any findings.
Wow. So pressure from within his own party. Immense
pressure. The sources detail that the Senate
minority leader at the time, Chuck Schumer, basically
confronted Franken, told him he needed to announce
his resignation by 5 p .m. that day. Or else
what? Or face the consequences, which would likely
include being formally censured by the Senate
and stripped of all his committee assignments.
Which would make him completely ineffective as
a senator. Completely powerless, unable to do
the legislative work he prided himself on. Censure
itself is a formal public rebuke that, you know,
permanently stains a political career. Faced
with that kind of ultimatum from his own party
leadership. He resigned. He announced his intention
to resign on December 7, 2017, and it became
effective January 2, 2018. And in his resignation
speech, he didn't hold back on the irony he felt,
did he? No, he specifically pointed out what
he called the profound irony that he was stepping
down, while other politicians, he cited President
Trump and Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore
specifically, who were facing multiple, often
more severe and very high profile allegations,
continue to enjoy the full support of their party,
the Republican Party. Yeah, that was a pointed
comment. And the personal cost for him was significant.
Apparently very severe. The sources note that
after the resignation, he went through a period
of clinical depression, needed medication and
felt this profound sense of isolation from public
life. And politically, that debate about whether
he got due process, it didn't really go away
after he left, did it? Not at all. It actually
grew louder, especially after some significant
reporting came out in 2019. Journalist Jane Mayer
published a piece in The New Yorker that documented
what she described as substantial inaccuracies
in some key parts of Leon Tweeden's original
account, particularly around the events of that
USO tour rehearsal. So new information casting
some doubt on the initial catalyst. Exactly.
And this new reporting seemed to spur a pretty
major reevaluation among some of his former Senate
colleagues. It suggested that maybe the initial
rush to judgment, that demand for immediate resignation,
might have been a political overreach. Did any
senators say that publicly? Oh, yes. Several
prominent Democrats came forward later expressing
really profound regret for calling for his resignation
when they did. We know former Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid, Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator...
Tom Udall. What did they say? Leahy was quoted
saying, calling for the resignation was one of
the biggest mistakes I've made in his Senate
career. Udall flatly said, I made a mistake,
and felt Franken had been essentially railroaded
and deserved a proper investigation by the Ethics
Committee. Reed called the way Franken was treated
terrible and unfair. So a real sense among these
senior figures that maybe the process failed
him. Yeah, the consensus among them seemed to
be that the desire for swift, decisive moral
action in that charged hashtag me too moment
had dangerously overridden the fundamental principle
of due process. And this also had political consequences
for Senator Gillibrand, who led that charge.
It did. She faced accusations from some of Franken
supporters, including some major Democratic donors,
of acting opportunistically. One prominent fundraiser
was quoted suggesting Gillibrand had kind of
stained her reputation as a fair player because
of the rushed judgment and that it might burden
her future political ambitions. It really brings
us back to Franken's own reflection on it later
in 2019. He acknowledged making some women uncomfortable,
said he was sorry for that. Right. He owned that
part. But he also really stressed the importance
of differentiating. You know, between different
kinds of behavior. Yeah. He specifically pushed
back on the political notion that, quote, anybody
who accuses someone of something is always right.
He said that's not the case. That isn't reality.
It's a statement that really cuts right to the
core of the dilemma, doesn't it? Yeah. How do
you navigate public accusations, intense political
pressure in an age of instant media judgment?
So as that political whirlwind finally started
to settle down a bit, we see Al Franken trying
to. well, reconstruct his public life. And he
seems to be returning, maybe inevitably, to the
worlds he knew best. media and entertainment
he's definitely gone back to his roots yeah his
post -senate career looks a lot like his pre
-senate career in some ways he launched the al
franken podcast back in 2019. what's that focus
on mostly politics current events global affairs
high -level commentary and he's also been touring
pretty extensively with a solo stage show ah
yeah the one with the title one with the classic
self -deprecating franken title the only former
u .s senator currently on tour perfect Got to
appreciate the humor there. Definitely. And in
maybe the most perfect or perhaps inevitable
piece of sort of cyclical irony, the sources
confirm he's actually returning to scripted acting
in 2025. Doing what? He's playing a U .S. senator
in a Netflix comedy mystery series called The
Residence. It'll be his first actual acting role
in like 27 years. Wow. So he's literally going
back to playing a senator. But this time it's
fictional. Under circumstances he can actually
control. kind of poetic in a way and and you
know that political fire it doesn't seem completely
extinguished either in an interview in 2022 he
did publicly express regret over resigning when
he did did he say he'd run again he didn't commit
but he did say it would be tempting to run for
public office again someday so that drive for
public service the thing that pulled him from
comedy into the senate in the first place it
clearly still seems to be a pretty powerful force
for him so what we've really covered today is
just this extraordinary distance traveled in
a single career i mean from the political satire
at Harvard Yard and 30 Rock. Right, through the
really complex policy fights in the Senate over
things like mandatory arbitration and the medical
loss ratio. And then finally to that just brutal
political mechanism that ended his tenure so
abruptly. It's a story defined by, wow, high
achievement, deep contradictions. And this really
dramatic high stakes collision between celebrity
politics and accountability in the modern age.
Yeah. It's a really powerful story about the
price of public life today, isn't it? Yeah. Especially
in this hyper -accelerated media environment
and maybe especially for a politician whose life
was already kind of built on irony and performance.
That's a great way to put it. So considering
those repeated, very explicit statements of regret
from his former Senate colleagues, you know,
powerful figures like Leahy, Udall, Harry Reid,
who felt he was denied the internal due process
he was entitled to. This really raises an important
question for you, the learner, to think about.
What responsibility do we hold as informed citizens,
as observers, when we're evaluating these complex
public accusations, especially when they happen
under such intense political pressure? How do
we balance that against the need for patience,
for waiting for a thorough, maybe impartial investigation?
It's a tough balance. It is. This raises an important
question for you to consider. Thank you for joining
us for this deep dive into the fascinating and
definitely contradictory trajectory of Al Franken.