Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Great. You're done. Doesn't seem that way since you keep jumping in, but whatever. An article that provides a clearer picture is of no use to you other than your focus on Franken's whining. If you're so done, stop posting.
Let me ask you this: What fact pattern would be necessary for you to want an inquiry to be held? If it were just this one woman and it was abundantly clear that she was making shit up? If there were two more women who came forward with stuff like, "He put his arm around my waist for a photo"? Does any of it actually matter or is it purely just a political question?
Given how Democrats operate and how Republicans operate, one would think that Democrats should be more circumspect when there is evidence that Republicans are weaponizing something like #Metoo.
I am as fervent a supporter of holding people to account as anyone. And I understand that, as we shift into a new way of applying that accountability that there may be some collateral damage (which, given how sexual assault has been treated in the past isn't a great tragedy). But we should want to focus on the right people and the right incidents. And if there's evidence that we aren't, that evidence should be considered, not ignored and dismissed.
The article was thoughtfully written and contained a lot of information we didn't have before. If you and Adder want to plug your ears while saying "lalalalala," go ahead (although it seems that you could that without posting about how much you want to actually do so). But your focus on Franken's whining and your unwillingness to discuss any of the substance of the article is just fucking weird.
TM
|
Look, I read it, I considered it, it focused mostly on one of several instances, and was by a credible writer. but frankly other issues matter more to me. I also think we had a fair bit of that information (not all of it, but a fair bit) at the time. I've posted a couple times on it because people were discussing it, but, really, Al is a big boy and this is a side show.
But, I'll answer your questions - what would have changed things then? Franken made what was a gracious response but a response which was also cautious and very much a non-denial denial on much of this - at the end of the day, there a picture of him "misbehaving" with a passed out woman. The lack of a picture certainly would have helped me feel more strongly about letting some form of process play out. The presence of true denials rather than non-denial denials, so I felt like there was some good chance that we weren't going to have more of these coming out of the woodwork. Of course if it were a single woman with an obvious ax to grind it would have made a difference, but that wasn't the situation.
There's also a local case where I did argue, for about two to three weeks, that someone who had done great work in politics was "entitled" to a bit more deference and more time to have a process because of that work in the past. Someone who I was personally very close to was forced out of their position as Senate President in Massachusetts because of alleged misbehavior (including but not limited to attempts to get people to sleep with him for access) on the part of his spouse, and I am completely convinced that a true hearing process would have exonerated the Senate President of all wrongdoing himself and that he could have stuck it out, though divorcing his husband probably would have had to have been part of that. But his ability to be effective had been completely compromised, and his resigning ended up being the better option for issues he cared about, and after a few bad weeks he did the right thing and stepped down. Because he delayed it there was more fallout and, in retrospect, a faster, classier exit, like Franken's exit originally was, would have been better.
But second guessing these decisions or looking for someone else to blame them on doesn't and shouldn't work in politics. Better to own them and move on, which is what I originally thought Franken was doing.
By the way, folks are having a great time throwing shit at Gillibrand. She has done some great work, especially on rape in the military, and this wasn't some one-off opportunistic thing. Indeed, I suspect it's got a lot to do with why she isn't getting traction in the Presidential race, so it's been politically damaging in very important ways. I'm really finding the attacks on her from many people rather precious.
Now, hopefully that is a thorough answer. Sigh.
