Al Franken's a chickenshit

[iuwclurker1]

But what was different between now and a year ago? Simple: Hillary's no longer in the political picture. As such, she and her husband are now expendable.

I think you're giving too much credit here. Democrats and especially Clintonites still want to minimize, to whatever degree, what Bill did. Simple truth is, all such behavior is... deplorable.

What's changed is #metoo. Now only Donald Trump is immune. It's open season on all the other perverts and since Democrats have their fair share of perverts, sexual predators, and otherwise juvenile adults, if they want to grab the high road, they simply have to consider all of them expendable. That's tough sledding, especially with the GOP controlling the majority of governorships.

Democrats are holding their breath, wondering just how big their own basket of deplorables is.

 

[T.M.P.]

Clintonites still want to minimize, to whatever degree

Maybe they do, who cares ... but when compared to Moore?

Pointing out the difference between consensual and non? Or pointing out the difference of over 22, and 14? Or the difference between a womanizer and a child molester?

Is that minimizing Clinton's actions or putting emphasis on the child molesting creep being a child molesting creep?

Are all womanizers now on equal footing with child molesters?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

There really aren't very many people who support Roy Moore -- especially among elected Republicans (are there any who post here?). So that's not a very good comparison.



You're only talking about Lewinsky, I gather -- or is it Flowers? Either way, you're apparently disregarding Paula Jones....whose story surfaced prior to the 1996 election.

And, besides, Democrats were supporting WJC pretty much unanimously even after the Broaddrick and Willey charges came out during his 2nd term. You can issue all the mea culpas you want to about that. But (a) you can't deny it, and (b) it's pretty convenient that it's taken some 20 years (and, more importantly, his wife's 2nd unsuccessful candidacy) for any Dems to do that.

I'll repeat it again: it was just one year ago that Andrea Mitchell falsely claimed on national television -- during scripted remarks, no less -- that Juanita Broaddrick's charges had been "discredited." They hadn't been, of course.

But what was different between now and a year ago? Simple: Hillary's no longer in the political picture. As such, she and her husband are now expendable.

Broaddrick signed a sworn affidavit saying Clinton never raped/assaulted her. She only changed her story when Ken Starr, on his blowjob crusade, offered her immunity to change her story because he needed ammunition on Clinton.

So, was she lying when she said he didn’t, or was she lying when she said he did?

Of course, lying never discredited anyone a republican supports/likes. Hell, it could get you elected president.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Maybe they do, who cares ... but when compared to Moore?

Pointing out the difference between consensual and non? Or pointing out the difference of over 22, and 14? Or the difference between a womanizer and a child molester?

Is that minimizing Clinton's actions or putting emphasis on the child molesting creep being a child molesting creep?

Are all womanizers now on equal footing with child molesters?

There you go minimizing again. All sexual harassment belongs somewhere in Dante's Inferno. That's the key point here. When you minimize any single act, you're minimizing the suffering of that victim. That's for her to do, not you.

 

[NPT]

There you go minimizing again. All sexual harassment belongs somewhere in Dante's Inferno. That's the key point here. When you minimize any single act, you're minimizing the suffering of that victim. That's for her to do, not you.

Yep... like trying to minimize the murder of those church people when compared to the one in Las Vegas. According to their logic the guy in TX is not near as bad as the one in Las Vegas because he didn't kill as many people.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Yep... like trying to minimize the murder of those church people when compared to the one in Las Vegas. According to their logic the guy in TX is not near as bad as the one in Las Vegas because he didn't kill as many people.

WITFF?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Broaddrick signed a sworn affidavit saying Clinton never raped/assaulted her. She only changed her story when Ken Starr, on his blowjob crusade, offered her immunity to change her story because he needed ammunition on Clinton.

So, was she lying when she said he didn’t, or was she lying when she said he did?

Of course, lying never discredited anyone a republican supports/likes. Hell, it could get you elected president.

My guess is that she was lying when she said he didn't. That's not exactly uncommon with victims of sexual assault, ya know....particularly when you're dealing with a power disparity thing and the victim has something to lose.

Hell, Weinstein had many of his victims sign NDAs -- sometimes in exchange for cash settlements...and, I would guess that we've not heard from plenty more of his victims who don't want to admit they they obliged his unwanted advances for career favors of one kind or another.

 

[Cajun54]

Let me know when we support a pedophile. And what we knew about Clinton, at the time, was that he was in a consensual relationship , according to her. Definitely wrong, but we didn't have all the facts. Is Dennis Hasert out of jail by the way?

Well....a few little news items regarding this subject to some extent. Google it as numerous reputable news organizations reported it and recently as a day ago. The Trump rape civil case for the alleged rape of a 13 year old girl has been dismissed the courts twice now I think. Once in CA and once in NY. Trump has continually asserted that the charges were “not only categorically false, but disgusting at the highest level and clearly framed to solicit media attention or, perhaps, are simply politically motivated,” adding that “There is absolutely no merit to these allegations. Period.”

Its interesting to note that the allegations involved Jeffery Epstein the known pedophile and convicted pedophile. Guess who was also apparently a close friend of Jeffery Epstein as well? A few recent news articles about this relationship below:

Former President Bill Clinton continues to remain silent about the 26 flights he took aboard convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s private jet, dubbed the “Lolita Express,” which reportedly offered underage girls to passengers to rape.

Clinton flew on some trips where the flight logs showed only the first names of female passengers

TheDCNF contacted the media office for Bill Clinton, but it refused to respond to a variety of questions about Clinton, his trips and his friendship with Epstein.

Between 2001 to 2003, Clinton and Epstein traveled together on extended trips around the world, according to flight records released in 2015

Flight logs obtained in January 2015 put Mr. Clinton on the billionaire’s infamous jet more than a dozen times — sometimes with a woman whom federal prosecutors suspect of procuring underage sex victims for Mr. Epstein. Records show Mr. Clinton declined Secret Service protection on at least five flights.
​

This charge against Trump is supposed to have happened at Epsteins so-called Wexner Mansion at 9 East 71st Street. Guess who else is known to have visited this location?

I have no idea if in fact Trump is guilty of this accusation or not. If he is he should be castrated along with a criminal conviction. Having said that it is apparently just as easy to assume Bill Clinton to have had and interest in the subject or at the very least totally unconcerned about his friends activities in that sick twisted area.

And yes Bills relationship with his intern was consensual and all that but it should be remembered that he was also the most powerful man in the world and she was but and intern. And there are all those other numerous allegations of sexual misconduct by Clinton and by several women.

I think they are both sleaze bags and I certainly wouldn't hold Bill Clinton up as and example of his actions being less intolerable than Trumps. Neither set a very good example IMHO.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

My guess is that she was lying when she said he didn't. That's not exactly uncommon with victims of sexual assault, ya know....particularly when you're dealing with a power disparity thing and the victim has something to lose.

Hell, Weinstein had many of his victims sign NDAs -- sometimes in exchange for cash settlements...and, I would guess that we've not heard from plenty more of his victims who don't want to admit they they obliged his unwanted advances for career favors of one kind or another.

Lying by the most powerful world leader about a blow job from the least powerful woman in the White House is understandable and forgivable. Lying by a powerless woman about sexual assault by the most powerful world leader isn’t understandable or forgivable.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

My guess is that she was lying when she said he didn't. That's not exactly uncommon with victims of sexual assault, ya know....particularly when you're dealing with a power disparity thing and the victim has something to lose.

Hell, Weinstein had many of his victims sign NDAs -- sometimes in exchange for cash settlements...and, I would guess that we've not heard from plenty more of his victims who don't want to admit they they obliged his unwanted advances for career favors of one kind or another.

My guess was going to be that’s what your guess was.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Oh goody. I just read a Buzzfeed story about past *settled* accusations against John Conyers by several staffers. I'm going to look into it more. But the story suggests that they were among dozens of such accusations against Congressmen that were quietly settled....using taxpayer funds.

It's something called the "Office of Compliance". If that's true, this sexual harassment story just took on a whole new dimension.

Why should taxpayer funds be used to settle sexual harassment complaints against elected officials? Who signed off on this...and why are we just now learning about it?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Check this recently released document out.

It details the number and value of settlements made by the Office of Compliance under the Congresional Accountability Act since 1997.

The nature of the settlements is not given. And it covers a number of things -- overtime, FMLA, ADA, etc.

But it also reportedly includes at least some settlements paid over sexual harassment claims made by staffers against members. And the total is north of $15m total.

Is there any good reason we're paying for these? Is there any good reason we shouldn't be privy to the details of sexual harassment complaints we're paying for?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Check this recently released document out.

It details the number and value of settlements made by the Office of Compliance under the Congresional Accountability Act since 1997.

The nature of the settlements is not given. And it covers a number of things -- overtime, FMLA, ADA, etc.

But it also reportedly includes at least some settlements paid over sexual harassment claims made by staffers against members. And the total is north of $15m total.

Is there any good reason we're paying for these? Is there any good reason we shouldn't be privy to the details of sexual harassment complaints we're paying for?

Considering the number of covered employees, those numbers actually seem kind of low. We're talking about a dozen settlements each year, out of 30K covered employees.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Considering the number of covered employees, those numbers actually seem kind of low. We're talking about a dozen settlements each year, out of 30K covered employees.

That misses my point. The numbers are what they are. If they're inaccurate, take it up with the OOC. It's their document -- I'm just linking it.

My problem is that some of the settlements hidden in there are reportedly for claims of sexual harassment made by staffers against members. The OOC doesn't mention that -- just FMLA, etc. Oh is that all this is??

Why are taxpayers -- and not the guilty members themselves -- paying for these settlements?

And why are we just now learning about this? If they're going to use taxpayer funds to settle sexual harassment complaints, shouldn't they...ya know...inform taxpayers about that?

Again, I've only seen the one report about Conyers. I want to get a full understanding of the pertinent facts. But, sadly, the document they released doesn't really help much.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That misses my point. The numbers are what they are. If they're inaccurate, take it up with the OOC. It's their document -- I'm just linking it.

My problem is that some of the settlements hidden in there are reportedly for claims of sexual harassment made by staffers against members. The OOC doesn't mention that -- just FMLA, etc. Oh is that all this is??

Why are taxpayers -- and not the guilty members themselves -- paying for these settlements?

And why are we just now learning about this? If they're going to use taxpayer funds to settle sexual harassment complaints, shouldn't they...ya know...inform taxpayers about that?

Again, I've only seen the one report about Conyers. I want to get a full understanding of the pertinent facts. But, sadly, the document they released doesn't really help much.

I didn't miss your point. I just don't have a response to it. It makes sense for the government to pay these settlements, but my visceral gut reaction is that when it comes to sexual harassment, I wish the people responsible were personally liable, instead. I'll have to mull that one over.

I'm not saying OOC is lying. I was just surprised the number was so low.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Apparently, one of the changes being sought by Jackie Speier in her bill is that members must pay their own sexual harassment claims under the CAA.

Well that's good -- and it's unconscionable that this wasn't already law.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I didn't miss your point. I just don't have a response to it. It makes sense for the government to pay these settlements, but my visceral gut reaction is that when it comes to sexual harassment, I wish the people responsible were personally liable, instead. I'll have to mull that one over.

I'm not saying OOC is lying. I was just surprised the number was so low.

You think it makes sense for taxpayers to pay for elected officials sexually harassing their subordinates?

There doesn't seem to be much to mull over for me. If it's a plain vanilla ADA violation, fine. But somebody trying to use their power to get their rocks off with a staffer? No way in hell.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You think it makes sense for taxpayers to pay for elected officials sexually harassing their subordinates?

There doesn't seem to be much to mull over for me. If it's a plain vanilla ADA violation, fine. But somebody trying to use their power to get their rocks off with a staffer? No way in hell.

No, I mean overall, it makes sense for the government to pay for violations of labor laws. And, yes, that would normally include sexual harassment. If the guy who manages the Senate dining room is pinching the waitresses' asses, he should be fired, but she shouldn't have to sue him personally for any award that might be due her under the law. The government should be liable just like a private employer.

When it comes to sexual harassment specifically committed by elected officials, my gut is to agree with you. That doesn't sit right with me. But I don't like to follow my gut to an exception to an otherwise reasonable rule of thumb without thinking about the consequences.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

You think it makes sense for taxpayers to pay for elected officials sexually harassing their subordinates?

There doesn't seem to be much to mull over for me. If it's a plain vanilla ADA violation, fine. But somebody trying to use their power to get their rocks off with a staffer? No way in hell.

The congressmen should be liable. If for some reason the award goes above their ability to pay, then the government can step in for the remainder.

The other issue is publicity. I heard it suggested elsewhere this should be public. But a quick counter was made that we should not out a victim. I think that is correct. I wish there was a good way to out the guilty but not at the victim's expense.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

The congressmen should be liable. If for some reason the award goes above their ability to pay, then the government can step in for the remainder.

The other issue is publicity. I heard it suggested elsewhere this should be public. But a quick counter was made that we should not out a victim. I think that is correct. I wish there was a good way to out the guilty but not at the victim's expense.

I'll go for the government third. Anything the Congressman can't pay personally can come out of his campaign funds. At least those funds came from people who voluntarily gave the creep money. Better them than taxpayers.

And I don't see why outing a Congressional harasser necessitates outing their victims. We publicly identify rapists and all other kinds of sex offenders without naming their victims all the time.

Of course the Congressmen should be publicly named -- so long as there's merit to the charge. Them above anybody else, frankly.

 

[NPT]

You think it makes sense for taxpayers to pay for elected officials sexually harassing their subordinates?

I think in some cases it does. For example, if the people in charge knew it inappropriate things were going on or created a workplace that accepted inappropriate things and did nothing about it then the government it partially responsible. I think that would be the case if you worked at some company.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I think in some cases it does. For example, if the people in charge knew it inappropriate things were going on or created a workplace that accepted inappropriate things and did nothing about it then the government it partially responsible. I think that would be the case if you worked at some company.

I don't understand. Who are "the people in charge" in your scenario? The House (or Senate) leadership? This "Office of Compliance"? The Sergeant at Arms?

I completely agree with you about a private company. If the higher-ups fostered a hostile work environment and a mid-level manager harassed a subordinate with or without their knowledge, the company and/or its owners should expect to be named a co-defendant. We carry insurance for just that sort of thing.

But the legislative branch of the United States Federal government is a horse of a different color.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Oh goody. I just read a Buzzfeed story about past *settled* accusations against John Conyers by several staffers. I'm going to look into it more. But the story suggests that they were among dozens of such accusations against Congressmen that were quietly settled....using taxpayer funds.

It's something called the "Office of Compliance". If that's true, this sexual harassment story just took on a whole new dimension.

Why should taxpayer funds be used to settle sexual harassment complaints against elected officials? Who signed off on this...and why are we just now learning about it?

Dude, you can’t complain about the government using taxpayer funds to handle legal situations. Not with the current regime you helped put into place. You have no credibility.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Dude, you can’t complain about the government using taxpayer funds to handle legal situations. Not with the current regime you helped put into place. You have no credibility.

If Donald Trump is sued for sexual harassment, I don't want the taxpayers paying any settlements of his, either.

Gee, that was easy.

 

[Zizkov]

You already did..... with Clinton.

And Clarence Thomas.

 

[Zizkov]

Yep... like trying to minimize the murder of those church people when compared to the one in Las Vegas. According to their logic the guy in TX is not near as bad as the one in Las Vegas because he didn't kill as many people.

I actually think the comparison being made it that shoplifting is not the same as murder, there are degrees of crime.

Womanizing isn't the same as assault. we can agree that both are wrong, but they aren't the same.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

And Clarence Thomas.

Speaking of different levels of bad...

Even if Anita Hill was being 100% truthful, all she accused CT of was repeatedly seeking to date her despite her refusals and then talking about Long Dong Silver and pubic hairs on Coke cans or some such thing. I don't remember her accusing him of crossing physical boundaries.

I doubt that would've been quite as traumatic as what Juanita Broaddrick says happened to her.

 

[iuwclurker1]

I actually think the comparison being made it that shoplifting is not the same as murder, there are degrees of crime.

Womanizing isn't the same as assault. we can agree that both are wrong, but they aren't the same.

Right, but what gets lost in your assertion that they're not the same is that accusing someone of shoplifting or murder is easy, whereas accusing someone of "minor" or "major" sexual assault can be difficult or even career threatening for the victim. Even worse, the committed act might have caused who-knows-what mental damage to the victim. That's what I mean by minimizing the perpetrator's act -- it's up to the victim to determine how minor or major that act was, not up to you or me or the court of public opinion. If the "minor" act caused irreparable or long-term mental harm, then how can you call it "minor"? If speaking out about the "minor" act causes tangible or intangible harm, how can anyone else call it minor?

And yes, I know you didn't use the word minor. That's why I put it in quotations.

 

[iuwclurker1]

crossing physical boundaries.

I doubt that would've been quite as traumatic as what Juanita Broaddrick says happened to her.

Crossing physical boundaries is an interesting concept. Does Louis CK cross a physical boundary by exposing himself? Evidently that act causes or would cause many people more distress than getting a tongue jammed into their mouth. Since both acts are known by the perpetrator to be unwanted "acts of communication," who are we to judge the adverse effects on the victims?

 

[iuwclurker1]

I know Al Franken's statement came out yesterday, but I just wanted to highlight that this confirms my original thesis that Al Franken is a chickenshit. This is in no way a case of him "believing the victim's story," as he said we need to do in his previous statement, and thus in no way a real apology.

“I take thousands of photos at the State Fair surrounded by hundreds of people, and I certainly don’t remember taking this picture. I feel badly that Ms. Menz came away from our interaction feeling disrespected.”
​

Listen, Al, either you remember it because hers was the only stranger's ass you've ever grabbed or you've grabbed thousands of asses or what? Do you ever remember grabbing a stranger's ass in a photograph? And so on...

Chickenshit, chickenshit, chickenshit.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

If Donald Trump is sued for sexual harassment, I don't want the taxpayers paying any settlements of his, either.

Gee, that was easy.

We’ll just have to see where the goalpost gets moved to if he is sued for harassment. Stay tuned.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Crossing physical boundaries is an interesting concept. Does Louis CK cross a physical boundary by exposing himself? Evidently that act causes or would cause many people more distress than getting a tongue jammed into their mouth. Since both acts are known by the perpetrator to be unwanted "acts of communication," who are we to judge the adverse effects on the victims?

Oh absolutely. I don't think crossing physical boundaries requires actual physical contact. I don't know if LCK is an according-to-Hoyle exhibitionist or not. But there is absolutely no question that exposing yourself to somebody who doesn't want to see it is crossing an important line.

But, here again, do I think that's as bad as what some others have been accused of (ie, sexual assault)? No. There's a scale here.

And I agree with you that, despite his disgusting behavior, at least he was man enough to own up to it unequivocally. I don't know how much that's worth in all this, but it's worth something.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

We’ll just have to see where the goalpost gets moved to if he is sued for harassment. Stay tuned.

In terms of who's liable for the damages? Well, I can assure you that I won't be moving any goalposts -- for Donald Trump or anybody else.

Bill Clinton paid his own settlement money in the Jones lawsuit (well, sorta...I'm sure it didn't exactly come from his salary, but it wasn't taxpayer funds) and I don't see why any elected official should be treated any differently.

This isn't a partisan thing at all for me. According to Rep. Speier, there were at least two sexual harassment settlements paid for out of the fund in question. Conyers was apparently one of them, the other one was an as yet unnamed Republican (I'm sure he won't remain unnamed for long). I can assure you that I'm no happier about taxpayers having to spring for that guy's settlement either, even if he turns out to be my favorite Congressman.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

... even if he turns out to be my favorite Congressman.

I thought you said Conyers was already named?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I thought you said Conyers was already named?

Heh...it's always been a tight race between him, Pete Stark, Luis Gutierrez, and Maxine Waters. Just depends on who's taking it hardest to the man any given day.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

I'ma help y'all out.

You can't run a fast break unless you can handle the ball.
Fundamentals matter.

Until the Equal Pay Act of 1963 was signed by JFK, discrimination on the basis of sex in employment matters was basically NOT ILLEGAL. This new law made it illegal to pay a woman less wages than a man "for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions...". (Many believe/d that the proposals for equal rights for women were actually designed to retard the increases in civil rights for blacks, i.e. "they'll never give equality to women - attach that to the bill.")

Until Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law by LBJ (after defeating a Senate filibuster by Democrats), there was no such thing as other employment discrimination "on the basis of sex." So, for example, if you hired a man and a woman as a welder, you might have to pay them the same, but until Title VII, you could say "I won't hire a woman as a welder - that's man's work."

Until a SCOTUS case in the late 70's called Meritor Savings Bank, "sex discrimination" did NOT include what is now called "harassment," which is "unwelcomed" sexual behavior that is so "severe" and/or "pervasive" that is can and does create a "hostile work environment." (Not all unwelcomed sexual behavior rises to that level, and the courts have specifically said that Title VII is not a "code of manners." Thus, when employees gathered around to discuss the masturbation episode on Seinfeld, it was not "sexual harassment" to those who were offended by the topic. However, under the law, a stripper by night is entitled to a workplace free from unwelcomed sexual behavior at the day job.)

Congress and the EEOC decided long ago that only an "employer" can "affect" the workplace sufficiently to prevent "harassment" and, therefore, only an "employer" can "discriminate," giving the "employer" the proper "incentive" to maintain discrimination-free workplaces. And THAT is why Joe's company, but not Joe the Harasser, pays the freight for harassment settlements.

Note this too - only "employees" have rights against harassment. We may soon see court cases tossing - for a potential example - claims against Harvey Weinstein because the actresses were/are "independent contractors." Or, as another example, because Actress A was an "employee of "Actress A Productions," which entered into a contract with "Harvey The Harassing Movie Guy Productions" to make a movie. If Actress A wanted to be free from harassment, "under the law" she should have "reported" the "harassment" to Actress A Productions, and made THAT corporate entity assure her a harassment-free workplace. Her failure to do so may mean "no harassment claim." Or, worse, her own company is the one liable to her.

All of the same "concepts" were carried into federal employment workplaces. They just added a few extra layers of administrative procedures.

Carry on.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Charlie Rose is a chickenshit too:

“I deeply apologize for my inappropriate behavior. I am greatly embarrassed. I have behaved insensitively at times, and I accept responsibility for that, though I do not believe that all of these allegations are accurate. I always felt that I was pursuing shared feelings, even though I now realize I was mistaken.”
​

An excuse is not an apology. We don't believe you, Charlie. Try again when you've found the backbone to be honest.

Ironic that he categorizes his excuse under "(shared) feelings" which is precisely where he must be lacking if he was truly unable to perceive that the feeling was not mutual.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I have to admit that a part of me admires the author of this piece.

She seems to have the same disdain for political pretense that I have -- and I think a whole lot of political opinions we read and hear these days are saturated in pretense.

Of course, in addition to being brutally honest, I also think it's equally shameless....with a light-dusting of pragmatism. But, then, sometimes brutal honesty goes hand-in-hand with some shamelessness -- which, I guess, is why we tend to get so much pretense.

The gist of her piece is that Al Franken shouldn't resign because he's a liberal and protects abortion rights, etc.

Now this is more like what we saw in 1998. Most people weren't nearly as honest as she's being about it. They came up with hackneyed rationalizations -- when what they really meant was along the lines of what she's saying here.

As a feminist and the author of a book on rape culture, I could reasonably be expected to lead the calls for Al Franken to step down, following allegations that he forced his tongue down a woman’s throat, accompanied by a photo of him grinning as he moves in to grope her breasts while she sleeps. It’s disgusting...(and) I firmly believe he should suffer social and professional consequences for it.

But I don’t believe resigning from his position is the only possible consequence, or the one that’s best for American women.

Cynics on both the right and left will presume I am passing by this particular steam tray on 2017’s smorgasbord of feminist outrage because Franken is a Democrat, and so am I. In the most superficial sense, this is true. But it’s meaningless to say it’s because I am a Democrat without asking why I am a Democrat. If you understand what it means to be a Democrat today....you can understand why it might not make the most sense to demand Franken’s resignation, effective immediately.
​

Maybe 20 years after Franken's political career is over, he too can become expendable. Until then, he's to be admonished but not dispensed....because to do so might jeopardize the agenda.

There will be some people clutching their pearls at this, I'm sure. But, quite frankly, I think this is a far, far more common approach to these kinds of things than most are willing to admit.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I have to admit that a part of me admires the author of this piece.

She seems to have the same disdain for political pretense that I have -- and I think a whole lot of political opinions we read and hear these days are saturated in pretense.

Of course, in addition to being brutally honest, I also think it's equally shameless....with a light-dusting of pragmatism. But, then, sometimes brutal honesty goes hand-in-hand with some shamelessness -- which, I guess, is why we tend to get so much pretense.

The gist of her piece is that Al Franken shouldn't resign because he's a liberal and protects abortion rights, etc.

Now this is more like what we saw in 1998. Most people weren't nearly as honest as she's being about it. They came up with hackneyed rationalizations -- when what they really meant was along the lines of what she's saying here.

As a feminist and the author of a book on rape culture, I could reasonably be expected to lead the calls for Al Franken to step down, following allegations that he forced his tongue down a woman’s throat, accompanied by a photo of him grinning as he moves in to grope her breasts while she sleeps. It’s disgusting...(and) I firmly believe he should suffer social and professional consequences for it.

But I don’t believe resigning from his position is the only possible consequence, or the one that’s best for American women.

Cynics on both the right and left will presume I am passing by this particular steam tray on 2017’s smorgasbord of feminist outrage because Franken is a Democrat, and so am I. In the most superficial sense, this is true. But it’s meaningless to say it’s because I am a Democrat without asking why I am a Democrat. If you understand what it means to be a Democrat today....you can understand why it might not make the most sense to demand Franken’s resignation, effective immediately.
​

Maybe 20 years after Franken's political career is over, he too can become expendable. Until then, he's to be admonished but not dispensed....because to do so might jeopardize the agenda.

There will be some people clutching their pearls at this, I'm sure. But, quite frankly, I think this is a far, far more common approach to these kinds of things than most are willing to admit.

After one incident, I thought Franken should be censured. Now with a second he needs to go. But I don't get where that columnist is coming from, Minnesota isn't likely to replace Franken with a solid conservative. In all probability there will be a liberal D in that seat.

But her comments are why some of us are disgusted with the system. At no point should any American be "Party Uber Alles". Another reason why we should eliminate party protections and allow them to die, as they used to do. It's like when a coach starts failing, people have too much emotional investiture to let them go. People have too much emotional investiture in being a D or an R that they can't see both should be allowed to die from rot and be replaced by newer, more real, organizations.

 

[iuwclurker1]

I have to admit that a part of me admires the author of this piece.

She seems to have the same disdain for political pretense that I have -- and I think a whole lot of political opinions we read and hear these days are saturated in pretense.

Of course, in addition to being brutally honest, I also think it's equally shameless....with a light-dusting of pragmatism. But, then, sometimes brutal honesty goes hand-in-hand with some shamelessness -- which, I guess, is why we tend to get so much pretense.

The gist of her piece is that Al Franken shouldn't resign because he's a liberal and protects abortion rights, etc.

Now this is more like what we saw in 1998. Most people weren't nearly as honest as she's being about it. They came up with hackneyed rationalizations -- when what they really meant was along the lines of what she's saying here.

As a feminist and the author of a book on rape culture, I could reasonably be expected to lead the calls for Al Franken to step down, following allegations that he forced his tongue down a woman’s throat, accompanied by a photo of him grinning as he moves in to grope her breasts while she sleeps. It’s disgusting...(and) I firmly believe he should suffer social and professional consequences for it.

But I don’t believe resigning from his position is the only possible consequence, or the one that’s best for American women.

Cynics on both the right and left will presume I am passing by this particular steam tray on 2017’s smorgasbord of feminist outrage because Franken is a Democrat, and so am I. In the most superficial sense, this is true. But it’s meaningless to say it’s because I am a Democrat without asking why I am a Democrat. If you understand what it means to be a Democrat today....you can understand why it might not make the most sense to demand Franken’s resignation, effective immediately.
​

Maybe 20 years after Franken's political career is over, he too can become expendable. Until then, he's to be admonished but not dispensed....because to do so might jeopardize the agenda.

There will be some people clutching their pearls at this, I'm sure. But, quite frankly, I think this is a far, far more common approach to these kinds of things than most are willing to admit.

That's the attitude that empowers people to vote for Moore and you used to justify voting for a sexual predator for POTUS. Problem is, as honesty, it's a form of "honesty among thieves." The fullest picture of honesty sees the perverted status quo we have as repugnant and combines that honest view with the courage to stand up to it. Maybe, finally, the Trump Catastrophe and #MeToo will embolden noble-minded people to take a stand and really shake up the status quo to which you "pragmatically" adhere in exchange for a more honest pragmatism that unseats the blinkered arbitraries of robotic ideology.

Democrats have to be willing to clear their ranks of sexual predators, even if it means losing senators in every red state where they have them. Only then can they claim any sort of high road. Republicans lost Congress in 2008 and got it back. It's not the end of the world.