Fate may be the same? I doubt it. Franken is a democrat who admitted to forcibly kissing a grown woman, then took a really stupid picture in an attempt to be funny. Roy Moore is a republican who’s been accused by multiple women that he kissed, groped, and chocked them as teenagers, but he wears cowboy hats and holds bibles. Franken will be extremely lucky if he isn’t expelled or if his own party doesn’t pretty much force him to resign. Republicans will eventually go silent (yes, my fan club, eventually) and Moore will enjoy a career as a US senator. The spineless Rs will hide behind statements like “The people of AL have spoken” and/or “we need to focus on moving the country forward for the American people”.
Al Franken's a chickenshit
- Thread starter iuwclurker1
- Start date
Fate may be the same? I doubt it. Franken is a democrat who admitted to forcibly kissing a grown woman, then took a really stupid picture in an attempt to be funny. Roy Moore is a republican who’s been accused by multiple women that he kissed, groped, and chocked them as teenagers, but he wears cowboy hats and holds bibles. Franken will be extremely lucky if he isn’t expelled or if his own party doesn’t pretty much force him to resign. Republicans will eventually go silent (yes, my fan club, eventually) and Moore will enjoy a career as a US senator. The spineless Rs will hide behind statements like “The people of AL have spoken” and/or “we need to focus on moving the country forward for the American people”.
I said most liberals. If you do not feel you fit in that category, why stick yourself in it. Same with Goat. Obviously not all liberals react in the way I mentioned but enough of them do to actually be a problem. And that problem manifests itself when guys like Bill Clinton do what they do or when old Uncle Joe is acting like a creeper around females (some of them younger than teens) at various photo ops (dude has a sick obsession with smelling women's hair.
I used to think they were the party that defended women but apparently they are too infiltrated by the patriarchy and rape culture.
And now we cannot even get some of you guys to condemn Franken without jumping into whataboutism about Moore to deflect on the bad behavior. This is not the Democratic Party I knew.
FYI.... my wife agrees with you on which is worse. I asked her that out of the clear blue sky without mentioning any names.
I don't think that you're unique and I know exactly what you're saying. It's like a person that goes into a really bad neighborhood and gets shot. Nobody had a right to shoot that person because they went there but he shouldn't be surprised that it happened. You have to look at reality and not how things "should be". If a woman dresses and acts like a hooker men are going to make certain assumptions (that's reality but it doesn't make it right) so she shouldn't be surprised if something happens.
Link? His second statement admitted no such thing: "While I don't remember the rehearsal for the skit as Leeann does..."
"
Michelle Goldberg weighs in:
So my first instinct is to say that Franken deserves a chance to go through an ethics investigation but remain in the Senate, where he should redouble his efforts on behalf of abuse and harassment victims. But if that happens, the current movement toward unprecedented accountability for sexual harassers will probably start to peter out. Republicans, never particularly eager to hold their own to account, will use Franken to deflect from more egregious abuse on their own side, like what Trump and Roy Moore are accused of. Women with stories about other members of Congress might hesitate to come forward. That horrifying photo of Franken will confront feminists every time they decry Trump’s boasts of grabbing women by the genitals. Democrats will have to worry about whether more damaging information will come out, and given the way scandals like this tend to unfold, it probably will.
It’s not worth it. The question isn’t about what’s fair to Franken, but what’s fair to the rest of us. I would mourn Franken’s departure from the Senate, but I think he should go, and the governor should appoint a woman to fill his seat. The message to men in power about sexual degradation has to be clear: We will replace you.
It’s not worth it. The question isn’t about what’s fair to Franken, but what’s fair to the rest of us. I would mourn Franken’s departure from the Senate, but I think he should go, and the governor should appoint a woman to fill his seat. The message to men in power about sexual degradation has to be clear: We will replace you.
Link? His second statement admitted no such thing: "While I don't remember the rehearsal for the skit as Leeann does..."
"
He apologized, which implies consciousness of guilt. He admitted to kissing her. If he believes it didn’t happen the exact way she remembers, why apologize? I’m not about to apologize for something I didn’t do. His apology is certainly more than I’ve heard anyone from the self righteous party of Christianity do lately.
I disagree with Goldberg. Franken should be held accountable (whatever that turns out to mean here), but he shouldn't be sacrificed to a larger cause, which is what Goldberg is calling for.
Maybe he should stop complaining since he seems to go so easily into those baskets.
Who isn't condemning Franken? You should probably concentrate on what "the party of family values" has become, led by the predator in chief.
Liberals own up to their mistakes and disown liberal politicians who don't. The party of god circles the wagons, runs, and smears their victims. Hypocrisy is a one-way street.
Last edited:
Oh please.
I'd be interested to hear Mary Jo Kopechne's thoughts on this sentiment, but she's unavailable for comment. Meanwhile, Ted Kennedy was still in office -- held in very high esteem by many, no less -- at his death.
That's not to say you're wrong about Republicans circling wagons. But if you really think the Dems are better on this account, you're deluded.
Again, link? He only explicitly addressed the picture in that statement, and he gave short shrift to the kiss and admitted nothing about it.
Nicole Hemmer published this article on Nov. 14, before Franken was outed yesterday.
Facing the Sins of the Democratic Party
Democrats must confront their own failings on sexual harassment if the party is to serve as a true home to women.
...
Democrats must confront their own failings on sexual harassment if the party is to serve as a true home to women.
...
This is not whataboutism. The intention here is not to distract from Moore's alleged misdeeds, or for that matter, from Trump's. But for decades, most Democrats have brushed aside the wrongdoings of powerful men when it serves their interest, just as most Republicans did with Trump, and many other Republicans, especially in Alabama, are doing with Moore.
To set side-by-side Clinton, Trump, Kennedy and Moore is not to muddy the waters – the goal of whataboutism – but to clarify them. Partisanship has fractured the lens through which these men are seen, separating Clinton and Kennedy from Moore and Trump, allowing the party faithful to see the sins of one side but not the other. And that one-sided vision of wrongdoing has translated into believing women who bring allegations against politicians on one side but not the other.
And it's that, that instrumental belief in women's stories, that has to end. Believing women only when it's politically useful isn't really believing women, but believing that they can be effective political weapons. By acting as though women are only useful when they are a means to an end, it recreates the conditions that enabled them to be harassed and abused in the first place.
For Democrats, this is both a moral and a political problem. At the moment, the party has a base teeming with women activists, many of whom were drawn into party politics by the aggressively misogynistic politics of Donald Trump. But for the party to be a genuine home for these activists, Democrats must confront their mistakes and misdeeds in the realm of sexual harassment.
Now she has tweeted this:To set side-by-side Clinton, Trump, Kennedy and Moore is not to muddy the waters – the goal of whataboutism – but to clarify them. Partisanship has fractured the lens through which these men are seen, separating Clinton and Kennedy from Moore and Trump, allowing the party faithful to see the sins of one side but not the other. And that one-sided vision of wrongdoing has translated into believing women who bring allegations against politicians on one side but not the other.
And it's that, that instrumental belief in women's stories, that has to end. Believing women only when it's politically useful isn't really believing women, but believing that they can be effective political weapons. By acting as though women are only useful when they are a means to an end, it recreates the conditions that enabled them to be harassed and abused in the first place.
For Democrats, this is both a moral and a political problem. At the moment, the party has a base teeming with women activists, many of whom were drawn into party politics by the aggressively misogynistic politics of Donald Trump. But for the party to be a genuine home for these activists, Democrats must confront their mistakes and misdeeds in the realm of sexual harassment.
Alyssa Rosenberg:
No man accused of sexually harassing a woman is irreplaceable. Not even Al Franken.
...
These supposed dilemmas are driven by an assumption that’s powerful but also untrue. We must live with the conduct of men who behave badly toward women, the thinking goes, because their contributions count for so much. In some cases, their positions do feel unique: C.K.’s blunt treatment of misogyny was unusual in comedy. Weinstein was the rare producer who seemed to enjoy finding and promoting great roles for older actresses. But a lot of the time, these cases create a sort of tunnel vision. The idea that Roy Moore’s supporters need to reconcile themselves even to the allegations that he abused a 14-year-old girl and harassed and assaulted other young girls and women on the grounds that he’s the only person who can take their theological vision of the world to Congress simply isn’t true.
We shouldn’t allow ourselves to get trapped by this false logic, not least because it prevents us from pushing other men to step up to the plate. Saying that Weinstein is the only person who could push roles for Meryl Streep or Judi Dench lets the rest of Hollywood off the hook for being stupid enough to waste the talents of a whole cohort of older actresses. Suggesting that only C.K. could tell the truth about misogyny is just an excuse for letting the rest of comedy stay mired in the piggish norms of an earlier era. And if we were really in a situation where Franken was the only male senator willing to stand up for rape victims, then we would be in even deeper trouble than we are now.
These supposed dilemmas are driven by an assumption that’s powerful but also untrue. We must live with the conduct of men who behave badly toward women, the thinking goes, because their contributions count for so much. In some cases, their positions do feel unique: C.K.’s blunt treatment of misogyny was unusual in comedy. Weinstein was the rare producer who seemed to enjoy finding and promoting great roles for older actresses. But a lot of the time, these cases create a sort of tunnel vision. The idea that Roy Moore’s supporters need to reconcile themselves even to the allegations that he abused a 14-year-old girl and harassed and assaulted other young girls and women on the grounds that he’s the only person who can take their theological vision of the world to Congress simply isn’t true.
We shouldn’t allow ourselves to get trapped by this false logic, not least because it prevents us from pushing other men to step up to the plate. Saying that Weinstein is the only person who could push roles for Meryl Streep or Judi Dench lets the rest of Hollywood off the hook for being stupid enough to waste the talents of a whole cohort of older actresses. Suggesting that only C.K. could tell the truth about misogyny is just an excuse for letting the rest of comedy stay mired in the piggish norms of an earlier era. And if we were really in a situation where Franken was the only male senator willing to stand up for rape victims, then we would be in even deeper trouble than we are now.
I'm not sure what this wrinkle does to the debate/conversation here, but Leeann Tweeden has accepted Franken's apology.
"The apology, sure I accept it, yes. People make mistakes and of course he knew he made a mistake," Leeann Tweeden said. "So yes I do accept that apology. There's no reason why I shouldn't accept his apology."
She said it's up to Congress to decide if it wants to have an ethics investigation into Franken's behavior, adding that she isn’t calling for Franken to step down, unless more women come forward.
“People make mistakes. I’m not calling for him to step down. That’s not my place to say that,” Tweeden said.
I'm not going to trip over myself saying that this STILL was a wrong and foolish act by Franken (we all know it is/was), but now that two grown adults have acknowledged one of them did something wrong to the other and the guilty party has since apologized and both parties seem to want to put this behind them, where does this go?She said it's up to Congress to decide if it wants to have an ethics investigation into Franken's behavior, adding that she isn’t calling for Franken to step down, unless more women come forward.
“People make mistakes. I’m not calling for him to step down. That’s not my place to say that,” Tweeden said.
The best thing Al Franken has going for him right now is that I'm sure he's not the only Senator who has crossed the line.
Given that his transgression falls on the milder end of the scale and can plausibly be chalked up as a joke taken too far, I'm guessing there are others who are relieved that he's going first and might prevent dominoes from falling by applying a slap on the wrist.
If he were to lose his seat because of this, I'd be willing to bet it would touch off a chain reaction. It might still -- but, being that some of the hands in which his fate may rest are probably dirtier than his, they probably don't want to tempt fate.
We are being conditioned to a narrative. It must become rote that sexual harrassers deserve to lose everything in recompense for their sins. Dems are all too happy to set little Al, Uncle Ted and Slick Willy up on the blocks. Sacrificing a couple of has-beens and a nobody is just enough in the realm of the political to purchase a foothold in the moral high ground. From this position, they'll come with guns blazing for Ped-o-Roy and the Donald. Rosenberg let's the pussy out of the bag with this article, showing the rest of us what the end game of all of this really is--regular old POLITICS.
Yes, yes...you condemn him and then run off into whataboutism. Your post being a case in point. And your bringing up the family values party thing is my point as well. Who has claimed for years to be the party with women's best interests at heart, I think that mantle is ****ing laughable because all it refers to is abortion, but I digress. They claim it anyway. So if the Democrats are the party of women and if forcibly sticking a part of your body into another persons body in an unwanted sexual way is harrassment at the very least (it was not just a little kiss either, he grabbed the back of her head and smashed his weasel face into hers and then stuck his tongue down her throat) then Al has gotta go folks. Using your rules whenever one of the Family Values guys goes astray, Al has got to resign. He cannot claim that mantle (for women) and do what he did.
Which is part of the whole point to my semi troll job. You all are willing to condemn Stuart Smalley the ha ha funny man for making an innapropriate joke but none of you are willing to go that extra step in saying he should step down. Because that effects the political balance in Washington.
If it was Ted Cruz who had done that to Scarlett Johansen you would all be losing your shit. And if any of us righties had said it was just a kiss and was meant as a joke, you would be freaking the **** out about how horrible Republican attitudes towards women are and Rockfish would be waxing poetic about whataboutism if any conservative poster brought up indiscretions on the left. In fact there are article's out there right now blaming Al Franken and Weinstein's behavior on Trump and Republicans even though those ass hats were involved in this behavior long before Trump got elected.
And that my friends is why SOME of you are so fantastically and predictably full of shit. Party for women phhbbbt. The Democrats are every bit the shady shitty party you feel Republicans are.
"You got a nice wife there Ashton....oooo and her hair smells so sweet."
Let's maybe stay in the last decade or two. The parties have changed quite a bit since then.
Blah, blah, blah. Donald Trump is and always will be the deal breaker. And the face of the Republican Party. Pontificate all you want. He's yours.
Yes, yes...you condemn him and then run off into whataboutism. Your post being a case in point. And your bringing up the family values party thing is my point as well. Who has claimed for years to be the party with women's best interests at heart, I think that mantle is ****ing laughable because all it refers to is abortion, but I digress. They claim it anyway. So if the Democrats are the party of women and if forcibly sticking a part of your body into another persons body in an unwanted sexual way is harrassment at the very least (it was not just a little kiss either, he grabbed the back of her head and smashed his weasel face into hers and then stuck his tongue down her throat) then Al has gotta go folks. Using your rules whenever one of the Family Values guys goes astray, Al has got to resign. He cannot claim that mantle (for women) and do what he did.
Which is part of the whole point to my semi troll job. You all are willing to condemn Stuart Smalley the ha ha funny man for making an innapropriate joke but none of you are willing to go that extra step in saying he should step down. Because that effects the political balance in Washington.
If it was Ted Cruz who had done that to Scarlett Johansen you would all be losing your shit. And if any of us righties had said it was just a kiss and was meant as a joke, you would be freaking the **** out about how horrible Republican attitudes towards women are and Rockfish would be waxing poetic about whataboutism if any conservative poster brought up indiscretions on the left. In fact there are article's out there right now blaming Al Franken and Weinstein's behavior on Trump and Republicans even though those ass hats were involved in this behavior long before Trump got elected.
And that my friends is why SOME of you are so fantastically and predictably full of shit. Party for women phhbbbt. The Democrats are every bit the shady shitty party you feel Republicans are.
"You got a nice wife there Ashton....oooo and her hair smells so sweet."
And that my friends is why SOME of you are so fantastically and predictably full of shit. Party for women phhbbbt. The Democrats are every bit the shady shitty party you feel Republicans are.
"You got a nice wife there Ashton....oooo and her hair smells so sweet."
This should be interesting. There’s some more out there with creepy Ridin Biden with young girls.
Ted Kennedy hasn't been dead for very long, zeke. At no point in time did any Democrat (including those who vote in Massachusetts) say "You know, we're going to hold you accountable for what happened at Chappaquiddick.
His punishment -- if you want to call it that -- is that he never got the party's nomination for president. He was relegated to a lifetime seat in the lowly US Senate.
Yeah, the incident itself happened nearly 50 years ago -- but the excusing of it never ended.
Now that he's safely dead and everybody's mounting their high horses, I'm sure some lefty pundit will be out with a piece any day now saying "You know, upon reflection, maybe Ted Kennedy should've faced more consequences for Chappaquiddick."
He's just one example -- although a pretty prominent one. And, no, I'm not saying the GOP is any better on this account. That's not my point. My point is that nobody's hands are very clean on this stuff. I just wish more people would cop to it.
According to the Justice Department, Office on Violence Against Women:
Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.
Guess this explains why Franken did not explicitly admit to anything related to the kiss in his statement, no doubt well vetted by his lawyers. His only argument that he did not commit sexual assault is his weak claim that she agreed to whatever he did.
That definition doesn't really clear up to me whether or not an unwanted kiss amounts to sexual assault. The list of examples it gives clearly wasn't intended to be exhaustive. But is kissing a type of "sexual contact or behavior"? I don't know.
But, like I said above, I tend to think Franken's going to get by with some kind of mild rebuke. The last thing his colleagues want is to set off a line of dominoes -- particularly those who know that they're apt to be one of them.
Let's stick to sticking one's tongue in another's mouth during a kiss. If it's not sexual contact or behavior, what is it? Or you could ask, in what context other than sexual contact would you, as a 55-year-old, stick your tongue in someone else's mouth, without explicit consent?
Under federal law, kissing is not sexual contact. Sexual contact is defined as touching genitals, buttocks, inner thigh or breasts. There is also a definition of "sexual act" which is slightly more limited.
What Franken allegedly did was wrong, but it was not criminal.
This discussion is all so very stupid, and yet so predictable. 
Let's think about this for a second.
Are you saying that, if things are heating up with a woman and I decide to go from a closed mouth to an open mouth kiss, I have to stop and ask her if it's OK....else I'm committing sexual assault?
Granted, that's a different situation than what AF is accused of. But, still, I'm not sure I'm with you on the "explicit consent" thing. To be sure, it's one thing if there's explicit non-consent -- if she gives some unmistakable gesture which would reasonably be construed as a "no" and I refuse to stop, then I've crossed that line. But it seems something pretty different to suggest that consent has to be "explicit" rather than implied.
Okay. Same goes for the California code, as far as I can tell. So tell me this, since it's possible to get STDs by kissing, is there no criminal violation for doing that without consent?
And Trump, too I guess?
Oh that's right...you voted for him because you are perpetually full of shit like everyone else on here.
I can imagine numerous hypotheticals in which a kiss could be criminal in some jurisdictions. Knowingly exposing someone to a disease would be one. But they all require some extra facts beyond the kiss itself.
I don’t know exactly what you’re looking for, but he didn’t deny kissing her or trying. Politicians word responses very carefully. If he didn’t kiss her he wouldn’t be saying he doesn’t remember the way she does. He would flat out say he didn’t do it. These statements can be used in hearings later. His statement doesn’t allow someone to say he was lying and call his credibility into question.
I think lurker wants to call it "sexual assault" and it matters to him/her for some reason.
If we're just talking about criminal conduct, sure, almost anything can theoretically amount to simple battery.
crazed raises the point I was trying to make and apparently made without much eloquence. Franken had permission to practice a stage kiss. It is the manner in which he kissed her that is what he did wrong. Tweeden said that she felt uncomfortable with the scripted kiss and planned to turn her cheek at the last moment onstage when they performed it to get a laugh. Franken had something else in mind. What the performers should have done is talked about the way they wanted to handle the kiss and how it fit in the context of the humor of the skit they were performing. What did the script say? Who were the "characters" they were playing? What was the gag?
None of that should minimize Tweeden's anger or distress about it. But I find it helpful to distinguish between this and the things that Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, Roy Moore, Kevin Spacey, Donald Trump and Brett Rattner (all of which should be distinguished between each other) are accused of having done.
