Maybe Al can write another book. Instead of "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fan Idiot", he can write a similar one for Coleman, who should have conceded this case long ago. Coleman is typical of how the Republican party and its leadership have has acted for a very long time. Glad to see them sulking in the corner with the dunce cap on for now along with Coleman.

David Brook's hint to the Republican party (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/30brooks.html) in yesterday's NY Times op-ed at has me wondering if the party will reinvigorate itself and adopt the trust busting, progressive nature that elements of the party once displayed in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century, (as demonstrated by certain aspects of Theodore Roosevelt's Presidency). It doesn't seem possible, but the winds of change blow hard and will require that the Republican party rethink it policies if it has any chance to survive. Should it happen, and that seems unlikely right now, they would have to abandon their entire platform and radically remaking itself into something other than what the party is now. Brooks has arguing and advocating for a radical remaking of the Republican party for quite some time, which I think could end helping them become something other the monster party they are now.

If that were to happen, let's hope they don't adopt imperialist policies similar to Teddy Roosevelt's, as demonstrated by the adventures in the Phillipines and Sapin. The Anti-Imperialist League took Roosevelt on. Mark Twain was one of their most well known members of the group. But I'd welcome a progressive turn in the Republican ranks, although that's just wishful thinking I'm sure.

I do find some humor in having a professional comedian sitting in the Senate. I don't have any intention of voting as a Republican now, or barring future radical changes, in the future. Should the Republican party sincerely reinvent itself in this manner by becoming more progressive, they could attract a host of new followers.

I don't usually agree with Brooks, although he did score some excellent points with me when he remarked that the Democratic party has been kowtowing to corporate America excessively at least since Clinton I. Not that the Republicans have the same disease but worse, bowing to corporate wsih has fatally wounded them - the policies of the Republican leadership and its which ravaged the middle class and poor, particularly in the last eight years. But I'd welcome this kind of pressure being put on the Democratic party.

I expect the Democratic party will try to create policies that will move things in a positive direction, although I am still disturbed by how much the Obama administration so far has mimicked the Clinton administration in some ways in catering to corporate America far, far more than is necessary.

I don't know if Franken will remain a comedic Senator, although we could use some levity as well as having a government jester in the Senate. A Jon Stewart style politician might very well add some levity to that body by using humor mocking the conventional and often wrong-headed policies of the "serious" politicians, not that I don't believe Franken is capable of being serious enough to add some common sense and a sensee of clarity to the arguments often advanced by members of that body.

As final aside, I would note that Albert Jay Nock outlined the importance of "The King's Jester", a position he indicated was then best held by "the paragrapher". http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~ckank/FultonsLair/013/nock/jester.html

John Stewart, although not a "paragrapher" by strict definition, seems to be our current best national example of such a person, although the great Jon Swift - who would literally fit the definition - might take the title in the blogging world should it not be taken by the owner of this blo). If one qualified jester were to appear in the Senate, he might very well, on occasion, use well crafted comedic arguments to pillory the often ludicrous policies of the right wing base of the Democratic Party as well as the party that is currently sulking in the corners of politics with a big chip on its shoulder, with Coleman being a prime example.

I would enjoy hearing some comments regarding Brooks' column from yesterday on this blog. I think he made some valid points about the Democratic party, not that any of his Republican colleagues can see the opening for remaking the Republican party that Brooks astutely observed had been created. Although I may be reading too much into it. Brooks has made similar argument that the party needed to abandon huge swaths of its ideology on many occasions and I don't see any movement in that direction.

I wish a big fine had been levied against Coleman. He certainly continued long after it was clear that he has decisively lost.