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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Sexism, like racism, is actually everywhere.

Put a pin in that. Because I'm almost done with White Fragility (which I've enjoyed quite a bit and found really well reasoned and well written, and enlightening and mind changing in some regards, btw), and I think she's highlighted some unique facets of racism that render your comment here a bit too blunt and general. (Racism is everywhere, but I'm not sure sexism is everywhere in the same unique way.)

But I haven't finished yet (reading four books at once right now), so I'll wait until I've completed to comment.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

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.

Caveat emptor, Kirsten.

She made a choice, just as some here claim Franken made a choice. The only difference is hers was knowing, intentional, self-serving, and calculated. She chose to destroy a colleague for nothing more than her own advantage. Franken, OTOH, was cornered and made the only choice he thought he could.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Why? Because you know she wouldn't just be an apologist?

Yes, and I think she has a lot of credibility in this sphere.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

I don't know what this snarky shit means.

TM

One thing I've avoided in my responses are absolutes, but you seem to be looking to read them in so you can beat up a strawman. Fairness is a great thing, but sometimes it gives way to safety. Safety is a great thing, but sometimes it gives way to fairness. Politics may or may not matter, and there is no one size fits all bit for process that is reasonable or fair or whatever other adjective you want. And you and I may balance all these things differently in any given case. Do realize ( and I think you do) that in all of this that one problem that needs to be factored in is the constant discounting of women's voices (I agree with RT on the authorship).

And, yes, Gillibrand paid a price, and I'm not asking you to feel sorry for you, but I am going to laugh at people who say she was being "opportunist". Sure, yeah, it's a great opportunity to get shat on by half your prior supporters. Complain all you want about her, but you do see that it's a bit precious to call her an opportunist, don't you?

TM, I responded to your questions because it's you. But if you want a fight, I'm sure Adder is about.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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.

Just stop it. Jesus fucking Christ. No one thinks this shit is the same. We're talking about a mindset. You know this, of course.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

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.

So the House and Senate Ethics Committees should be dissolved (or, better yet, flat-out ignored) because you think everything should be handled based on whatever the current political climate dictates.

There is something the fuck wrong with you.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

One thing I've avoided in my responses are absolutes, but you seem to be looking to read them in so you can beat up a strawman. Fairness is a great thing, but sometimes it gives way to safety. Safety is a great thing, but sometimes it gives way to fairness. Politics may or may not matter, and there is no one size fits all bit for process that is reasonable or fair or whatever other adjective you want. And you and I may balance all these things differently in any given case. Do realize ( and I think you do) that in all of this that one problem that needs to be factored in is the constant discounting of women's voices (I agree with RT on the authorship).

What? Absolutes? Strawmen? Discounting of women's voices? What are you talking about?

I'm not beating up strawmen, jackass. I'm responding to the things you say. If you don't want to engage, just say so. Don't throw out a bunch of random shit and act like you're exasperated. Hell, I don't even know what your last sentence means. Whose voice is being discounted? The accuser? The author? The anonymous women? Gillibrand's? And discounted how? By asking for their voices to be heard in an investigation? If your point is that we get a kangaroo court like the one carried out by Republicans for Kavanaugh, I'll take that point. If you're saying the Senate Ethics Committee can't or won't hold a fair investigation, or even that that process would be just as superficial and political as the one Franken found himself subject to, I might buy it. But you didn't write any of that.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

And, yes, Gillibrand paid a price, and I'm not asking you to feel sorry for you, but I am going to laugh at people who say she was being "opportunist". Sure, yeah, it's a great opportunity to get shat on by half your prior supporters. Complain all you want about her, but you do see that it's a bit precious to call her an opportunist, don't you?

I think she made a hasty political calculation that did not work out the way she thought it would. And I think she did it at the expense of Franken when she didn't need to. I don't think any of the people she thought might support her would have refused to give her money based on her actual legislative record when it comes to supporting women. And if you equate "getting shat upon" with "won't support your drive to be president" you are down the rabbit hole, my friend.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

TM, I responded to your questions because it's you. But if you want a fight, I'm sure Adder is about.

I don't want a fight. I am legitimately surprised that there is nothing in that article that makes you want to even take a slightly closer look at how it went down. And frankly, as we watch the Republicans stomp all over the Constitution, laws, regulations, procedures, norms, and just plain decency, it surprises me that the only calculation when it comes to how you think we should proceed in the Senate is a cut-throat, purely politically expedient one.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

So the House and Senate Ethics Committees should be dissolved (or, better yet, flat-out ignored) because you think everything should be handled based on whatever the current political climate dictates.

There is something the fuck wrong with you.

TM

No, the Ethics Committees are for investigating and handing out penalties for ethics violations, which are different from festering political scandals, which the ethics committees cannot possibly address.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I think she made a hasty political calculation that did not work out the way she thought it would.

I think she actually has convictions about men groping women.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

No, the Ethics Committees are for investigating and handing out penalties for ethics violations, which are different from festering political scandals, which the ethics committees cannot possibly address.

Right. Impossible for the body that runs inquiries and investigations to do so in this case. Better to decide what to do based on whether or not a photo exists and if it has been splashed all over the news.

Originally Posted by Adder

I think she actually has convictions about men groping women.

Now you're just being an obtuse ass.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Right. Impossible for the body that runs inquiries and investigations to do so in this case. Better to decide what to do based on whether or not a photo exists and if it has been splashed all over the news.

Again, this was a political problem. That's not what the Ethics Committee (especially when it's controlled by the other party) is for.

It may have also been an ethics issue too, but they are separate issues. (Also, it would not shock me if there is no Senate ethics rule against being handsy)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

No, the Ethics Committees are for investigating and handing out penalties for ethics violations, which are different from festering political scandals, which the ethics committees cannot possibly address.

Wasn't a senate committee about to censure Packwood? Or was that different because Senate interns were the victims?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

Again, this was a political problem. That's not what the Ethics Committee (especially when it's controlled by the other party) is for.

It may have also been an ethics issue too, but they are separate issues. (Also, it would not shock me if there is no Senate ethics rule against being handsy)

I am not a Senate rules and procedure expert. If you're telling me that it was impossible for Franken to be held accountable for his actions under Senate rules, I do not believe you. Is the Ethics Committee the right body? No clue. Is it the Office of Compliance? The Judiciary Committee? I don't know. But the fact that Franken asked for it to be addressed and the answer wasn't "There is no mechanism," instead of, "Why drag this out, you'll hurt the party?" tells me that they chose not to use whatever mechanism is in place.

TM

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I am not a Senate rules and procedure expert.

TM

Jesus man. This is the lawtalkers politics board, not the amateur-hour cyclocross board that flower thinks it is.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

No, the Ethics Committees are for investigating and handing out penalties for ethics violations, which are different from festering political scandals, which the ethics committees cannot possibly address.

Oh, god, maybe I get to fight with you.

Of course the ethics committee could have dealt with this, they dealt with Barney Frank's stuff with Gobie and have dealt with other member scandals along the way involving all sorts of different issues.