Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Take all of the allegations listed in the Salon article, in context of: (1) when they occurred; (2) how frequently they occurred; and, (3) their severity, and ask yourself: Are these worthy of forced resignation?

You and Thurgreed keep thinking this is some sort of search for justice. It's not. He was caught being creepy at a time where that was hurting the party and would have kept hurting the party. He had to go.

Are these not of a nature and infrequency over an extended timeline that cries out for due process? Should Franken not be allowed to defend himself, even if his defense is, "I've made mistakes in the past, but I vow not to do so in the future?

Does it not strike you at all that there is significant evidence that crime and the punishment here are disproportionate?

No one was charged with a crime or punished.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yes, he handled it well at the time and there was a way back if he wanted it, but this isn't it.

Is he not allowed to reply to interview questions about it? He must go away and not speak of it? The guy cannot Monday morning quarterback himself?

He's not whining. That's a characterization you are using to avoid discussing substance. You're effectively branding him as shrill, or hysterical.

And the whole point of the piece is his not handling the situation well. Because he couldn't handle the situation at all. Franken was sacrificed by his party which was at the time in fear of a moral panic. He had almost no control and took the only course he thought he had open to him. Now, looking back, he thinks he could have responded differently and perhaps kept his seat. I think he's wrong. But either way, his interview on the subject is both enlightening as to what happened and insightful regarding a strange political moment, and the reprehensible acts of his fellow senators towards him. I'm glad I read it. I'm not so glad I read that tripe you offered from Salon.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You and Thurgreed keep thinking this is some sort of search for justice. It's not. He was caught being creepy at a time where that was hurting the party and would have kept hurting the party. He had to go.

No one was charged with a crime or punished.

He was fed to the wolves. He deserved better. And I say that with appreciation for the unfairness of politics. I can swallow the caveat emptor response. But it doesn't go down very well in this instance.

ETA: It rings lazy and cynical. And given Gillibrand guided the knife into his back for her own gain - to ride an earnest movement for political points ("I get the MeToo vote now!") - it's really hard not to gag on that explanation. That's countenancing Trump politics. We can look at that sort of thing and say, "that's how the game is played." That's fine. But you seem to be defending what was done to Franken, and criticizing him for pointing out the shitty and sleazy politics, and cowardice, that forced his resignation. That's strange.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

You and Thurgreed keep thinking this is some sort of search for justice. It's not. He was caught being creepy at a time where that was hurting the party and would have kept hurting the party. He had to go.

I think this is the major disconnect. To you, the only question is a political one. On that front, you're probably right. At that moment, it seemed the best decision was for him to bounce. And he did, gracefully.

However, you keep dismissing the other part of this, which I find amazing. How do we handle these things going forward? What is the right approach? What are the proper penalties given the behavior? Do we dig deeper on the allegations or is it enough for multiple women to make an accusation? Do we only behave based on political expediency? Why do we even have an investigative mechanism if the only question worth answering is whether it's good or bad for the party?

Two posters each accused me of awful behavior on this board. One (who will remain nameless and who very few people who remain here actually met, but who has been gone from this board for probably 15 years) got completely shit-faced and kissed me and then told a bunch of people I kissed her and how offended she was. The other (patentpara--we all know this story) said I hit on her and made her feel uncomfortable. Both accounts were complete and total fucking bullshit. Luckily, both times others saw what happened. If it were up to you, their accounts would be enough for you to kick me out of here.

I don't add this example as some weird way of explaining why my personal experience makes me think Franken was treated unfairly. I add it because this stuff is hard. If the Democrats can't figure out how to handle the accusations fairly and thoughtfully in the fucking Senate, where exactly will it work?

They needn't have dragged it out. And if the evidence was such that Franken deserved to be kicked the fuck out, doing it after actually looking at the accusations and hearing from him, instead of fighting each other to get to the front of the line of the people who are trying to own #MeToo, would have set an example of how to deal with this shit as responsible adults.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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.

Did you keep voting for Teddy up until the end?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Did you keep voting for Teddy up until the end?

Yes.

Forgive me for adding more to an already overlong response, just thinking of past issues.

I was a fan of Barney Frank sticking it out when his shit hit the paper and am glad he did. I was not a fan of Studds sticking it out in the same period - his misbehavior involved pages, the evidence was quite clear, and he crossed a different line. Barney really never got a real hearing because there were many people who convicted him of being gay so hiring a prostitute he later married wasn't his greatest sin, so he just took it and stuck it out. Studds should have lost his seat.

So I think the "process" issue isn't cut or dried. Fuckin nuance.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Two posters each accused me of awful behavior on this board. One (who will remain nameless and who very few people who remain here actually met, but who has been gone from this board for probably 15 years) got completely shit-faced and kissed me and then told a bunch of people I kissed her and how offended she was. The other (patentpara--we all know this story) said I hit on her and made her feel uncomfortable. Both accounts were complete and total fucking bullshit. Luckily, both times others saw what happened. If it were up to you, their accounts would be enough for you to kick me out of here.

Wait, a position on the board is the equivalent of US Senate?

This seems to me a big disconnect. This issue arises in many contexts - an allegation against a student, an allegation against a priest, an allegation against a law partner, and allegation against an anonymous poster on a lawyer's bulletin board. There is a big differences between these settings. Frankly, if you were a priest with a position in a Catholic School, damn straight I would want you suspended (perhaps not fired), on any credible allegation that involved sexual misconduct toward children, and I'd have a low bar for credible. But, uh, we don't exactly have the same issues on the board here. Likewise, what happened to Al is different than anything that might happen to you or me or even Hank because none of us are US Senators.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Is he not allowed to reply to interview questions about it? He must go away and not speak of it? The guy cannot Monday morning quarterback himself?

He's going to have a very hard time stepping back into politics by painting himself as the victim here. Maybe he doesn't want to get back into politics. He certainly doesn't need anything from it.

He's not whining. That's a characterization you are using to avoid discussing substance. You're effectively branding him as shrill, or hysterical.

Pretty sure I never said he was whining, but you're missing the sexism involved labeling things shrill and hysterical. No, there is no inverse that applies to men.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

You and Thurgreed keep thinking this is some sort of search for justice.

Yes, how naive of TM to think of justice at a time like this.

Originally Posted by Adder

He's going to have a very hard time stepping back into politics by painting himself as the victim here. Maybe he doesn't want to get back into politics. He certainly doesn't need anything from it.

Maybe he is trying to clean up his reputation so that he can get a cabinet job in 2021.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Did you keep voting for Teddy up until the end?

Ted Kennedy, shirtcocking: https://people.com/archive/cover-sto...-vol-35-no-15/

"Ted, she remembers, “was very drunk, and Patrick and I had a nice buzz on.” Left alone in the living room when Teddy, too, disappeared, Cassone heard talk and laughter in another part of the house but never saw anyone. It was only when Ted reappeared that Patrick’s visitor began to feel uncomfortable. As she and Patrick sat chatting, the Senator reportedly walked back into the living room without his trousers; as Cassone tells it, he seemed to be wearing only a long-tailed shirt. “I got totally weirded out,” says Cassone. Ted “didn’t say anything,” she says. “He just looked at Patrick. I said, ‘I’m out of here. I’m leaving.’ ”

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

How do we handle these things going forward? What is the right approach?

For whom? For an elected official? The answer will always be whatever the political environment requires. There will be an accusation and a response and the politics of the situation will determine what needs to happen.

Elsewhere? Well, companies and groups have policies and we have a legal system that's in place to work those things out.

The two things are only tangentially related. And the former will necessarily be less fair and thoughtful.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

He's going to have a very hard time stepping back into politics by painting himself as the victim here. Maybe he doesn't want to get back into politics. He certainly doesn't need anything from it.

Maybe he just wants to say what he never had a chance to say because Schumer and Gillibrand fucked him.

Pretty sure I never said he was whining, but you're missing the sexism involved labeling things shrill and hysterical. No, there is no inverse that applies to men.

I'm not missing the sexism. I believe both men and women can be shrill, hysterical, and can whine. You assume sexism because you find sexism everywhere you can, for the slightest of reasons. Let me assure you, I have exactly as much respect for both sexes. Which is very little.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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.

Forget Franken for a minute. He's fine. He's rich and getting richer.

My larger point is that I understand that we were at the beginning of a movement to hold people accountable--the same ones who had used the system to game it since the dawn of time. Again, there may have been some unfairness as we moved to a new way of handling these allegations. And Democrats (as opposed to Republicans) actually care about hypocrisy. But this can't be how we operate. "What is best for the Party?" cannot be the only question. We actually have to deal with stuff and figure out a way to be fair to the accused and accuser.

People keep comparing this to Roy Moore, which is ridiculous. Moore wasn't deprived of anything. People were given information to use when voting. If he were in office, I would expect that an investigation be performed before removing him. And I think he's absolute trash.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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.

So, does this photo of Tweeden squeezing someone's ass at a USO event give you some context of the atmosphere in which that photo of Franken not touching Tweeden was taken?

Do the many accounts of the people who were there change the way you feel about that photo at all? Does the fact that she clearly lied about his intentions change anything? Maybe not. But I would rather know all of that stuff.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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.

Come on. The other allegations were basically:

"I met him and he grabbed my butt."
"I met him and he grabbed my boob."
"He grabbed my waist during a photo."
"He wanted to kiss me but didn't."

I think all of those allegations should have been investigated. And I'm not trying to minimize any of them (especially not the first two, each of which, unfortunately, seem very plausible). But how does one deny accusations of this type if you don't remember them and don't sexually assault people? If someone accused me of grabbing their ass 20 years ago, how the fuck would I deny it? There is no way of flat-out denying it and I think Franken didn't want to show disrespect to any of his accusers (for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the atmosphere and thoughts of his own survival).

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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.

I don't think this is how it should work. Either you figure out what happened or you don't. Their good work, non-work, or crappy work shouldn't determine whether or not accusations should be looked into and punishment levied.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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.

Again, I do not think this is a healthy way to operate, even in politics.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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.

Sure she has. But some of her answers when it comes to this stuff have been woeful.

“We had eight credible allegations, and they had been corroborated, in real time, by the press corps.” She acknowledged that she hadn’t spoken to any accusers, to assess their credibility, but said, “I had been a leader in this space of sexual harassment and assault, and it was weighing on me.” Franken was “entitled to whichever process he wants,” she said. “But he wasn’t entitled to me carrying his water, and defending him with my silence.” She acknowledged that the accusations against Franken “were different” from the kind of rape or molestation charges made against many other #MeToo targets. “But the women who came forward felt it was sexual harassment,” she said. “So it was.”

And it doesn't cancel out her good work. But if she gets credit for that stuff, she can take the scrutiny when it comes to her rush on this.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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 think that people who were upset with how she handled Franken won't support her. She made that political calculation. She's living with it.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'm really finding the attacks on her from many people rather precious.

I don't know what this snarky shit means.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm not missing the sexism. I believe men can be shrill and hysterical, and women can whine. You assume sexism because you find sexism everywhere you can, for the slightest of reasons. Let me assure you, I have exactly as much respect for both sexes. Which is very little.

Sexism, like racism, is actually everywhere.