Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'm not sure the recent electoral past, or the composition of the current House and Senate, support this proposition.

I'm not convinced Franken won't hold on. The announcement of a future resignation is the kind of thing where there could be a call to reconsider, some further thought by a lot of people, possibly after the air clears a bit and we see what happens with Moore in particular or after the ethics committee weighs in a bit.

The really funny thing here is watching a bunch of Trumpsters defending Franken. If he does reverse course and hang in, he's going to be running with some interesting testimonials.

I think the GOP is defending Franken as a preemptive move. They know their closets are full of some seriously demented shit, and they want to be appear non-partisan when they have to defend a deluge of David Vitters, Denny Hasterts, and Bob Packwoods.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The really funny thing here is watching a bunch of Trumpsters defending Franken.

It's almost like doing so helps their credibility when they turn to defending Moore and Trump.

If he does reverse course and hang in, he's going to be running with some interesting testimonials.

He's not going to do that.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Here the bigger thing: The Democrats are not going to win by being the non-pussy grabbing party.

Those social issues you think will win the day? They're losers.

Two things:

1. We can be the non-pussy grabbing party without rushing to remove Franken who was accused of kissing someone a little too enthusiastically and squeezing asses. Punish him. If it's more than that, remove him. But the idea that we can't criticize Trump or Moore because Franken is in office is just dumb.

2. Wanting to be the non-pussy grabbing party is not about political strategy. Women shouldn't be assaulted. And neither party should tolerate it. That shouldn't be something either party takes a political stance on. And it shouldn't be something we're trying to run on. But we all need to understand that there are degrees of this type of behavior, some of which requires a measured response.

People do inappropriate shit. A woman at the Holiday Party about 4 years ago grabbed my dick at the bar. I've had women brush their hands against my ass or straight up grab it. None of these people should lose their jobs. If one of the partners I worked for grabbed my dick and said, "You want to be staffed on that next deal, you'll be quiet about this," they should be fired. Degrees.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Every single Democrat who has a mic thrust in his or her face asked to discuss this should say, "The comparison of an alleged child molester to anyone else is irresponsible and I'm not going to dignify that game by playing. Franken is the subject of an investigation as he should be and appropriate steps will be taken once the investigation has concluded."

They spent three weeks saying that.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think the GOP is defending Franken as a preemptive move. They know their closets are full of some seriously demented shit, and they want to be appear non-partisan when they have to defend a deluge of David Vitters, Denny Hasterts, and Bob Packwoods.

I saw tweets this morning saying that WashPo is preparing a story that will out as many as 40 alleged hill harassers.

ETA: I'm still not exactly clear what Trent Franks did, but credit where it's due that Paul Ryan told him to resign.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

A woman at the Holiday Party about 4 years ago grabbed my dick at the bar. I've had women brush their hands against my ass or straight up grab it. None of these people should lose their jobs.

They should if you felt harassed and complained about it. This is unacceptable behavior at work.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

It's not required for any charge. The whole party was on board for an ethics investigation after the initial allegations. It was the repeated new allegations, and the expectation that they would continue, that made resignation necessary.

There's still no there there. The worst allegations against Franken are that he grabbed someone's ass in a photo, and that he said "It's my right as an entertainer" while trying to kiss someone. The former is dispensed with by apology (if he even did it, which he says he cannot recall). The latter either did not happen or was a joke taken literally.

"Believe the women regardless of due process" may apply where there are numerous quite similar allegations. Moore's case meets that standard. His methods and approach were the same in each instance. Franken's case does not meet that standard.

At worst, Franken was a fratty jackass. To borrow from a classic tune, that "ain't no hanging matter... ain't no capital crime."*




___
* "Stray Cat Blues," Beggar's Banquet (1967). A song you most definitely can never play on the radio in the present climate. But should probably be played as intro to news stories on Moore for ironic effect.

[Adder]

It's always fun to hear from a bunch of men which transgressions against women are serious or not.

Anyway, as I've said, the politics and optics matter here a lot. I think not being an ongoing distraction and not being a liability on the ticket in the future are the key factors here. And, of course, things would have played out differently if the overall context was different.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

I'm going to say this as an overall comment because I'm seeing it in each of your responses below. Fix your fucking tone. You are not in a position to be talking in this patronizing manner on this issue or any other.

Originally Posted by Adder

I know you've paid attention to how the media handles these things. We don't control that.

It's a feeding frenzy. I know you've paid attention to how every single issue in the recent history of issues is treated this way until the next shiny object pops up.

Originally Posted by Adder

As I said, the only way to stop the bleeding from the continued drip of allegations was for Al to step down.

Repeating yourself doesn't address my response the first 3 times you said this. What bleeding? Just because it's in the news doesn't necessarily mean that there is bleeding. If your point was Flower's (and we both know it wasn't) and the Party thought Franken was in real danger of losing his seat, okay. That can be debated. But this idea that we are being damaged just because the topic is on the news for more than a couple of weeks is stupid. If you think that not removing Franken gives people in Alabama license to vote for Moore, you're nuts. They're voting for him or not voting for him already no matter what the Democrats do to Franken.

Originally Posted by Adder

Repeatedly saying, "we'll handle that later" doesn't do it.

I find this tactic of yours to be very annoying. Franken asked for an investigation which he wanted to cooperate with. If getting to the bottom of something and then taking action means "we'll handle it later" to you, then how the fuck are you even a lawyer?

Originally Posted by Adder

It's not. Believe it or not, people are capable of cynicism and reading "after the process is over" as "never."

This response is grating and condescending. We should proceed as a party based on the fact that some people think that an investigation isn't actually occurring? This can't possibly be your response.

Originally Posted by Adder

It's not required for any charge. The whole party was on board for an ethics investigation after the initial allegations. It was the repeated new allegations, and the expectation that they would continue, that made resignation necessary.

Allegations. Is that the new standard? Franken clearly didn't agree with a few of them. But now if a person in a position of influence does something wrong, we can just get a group of people accuse that person of similar wrongdoing and that's the end of them?

There needs to be some kind of balance when it comes to believing accusers and granting the accused some form of defense. If the last 3 accusations against Franken turn out to be bullshit, we chalk up his losing a senatorial seat to tough luck?

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I saw tweets this morning saying that WashPo is preparing a story that will out as many as 40 alleged hill harassers.

ETA: I'm still not exactly clear what Trent Franks did, but credit where it's due that Paul Ryan told him to resign.

I'm going to bet he asked a staffer to act as a surrogate.

And I wouldn't be surprised if he offered her a raise to do so, which gets into office finance violations.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

They spent three weeks saying that.

Right. And the whole Party has bled to death as a result.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

They should if you felt harassed and complained about it. This is unacceptable behavior at work.

Maybe. Should she be disqualified from holding office 20 years from now?

She misread the situation. She was drinking. Her career shouldn't be over as a result of it. And she shouldn't have to forfeit her future in another field either. If it was behavior that was uncovered after being looked into as being constant, that's a different story. All I'm saying is Franken should have had the benefit of an investigation before bouncing him.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

It's always fun to hear from a bunch of men which transgressions against women are serious or not.

There are objective standards. This is not an issue where a person gets to say, "I feel that I was harassed, so I was harassed."

Nor can one say, "Only women may define harassment."

That kind of thinking is dangerous.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

It's always fun to hear from a bunch of men which transgressions against women are serious or not.

Stop it. You're doing as much to define what amounts to what is serious and what isn't as everyone else. If Franken was a serial massager of shoulders, should he be fired? Is that for you to say?

You can't possibly be saying that men have to cede all right to express an opinion as to what amounts to harassment and what doesn't. Jesus.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

It's always fun to hear from a bunch of men which transgressions against women are serious or not.

Anyway, as I've said, the politics and optics matter here a lot. I think not being an ongoing distraction and not being a liability on the ticket in the future are the key factors here. And, of course, things would have played out differently if the overall context was different.

There are some obvious differences that anyone with a brain can see in all of this. Though you'll see both men and women (not just on Fox, but other places too) who can't see them.

I am among those who don't yet see exactly what makes Al Franken's situation so bad he needs to go, but we aren't privy to what might still come out from elsewhere and it's been a steady drip (albeit a drip that seems to be being fed). So I'm also not going to get too hyper about him leaving.

Likewise, I don't yet see the fire behind the smoke in Trent Franks case. It may be we'll soon discover that the request to serve as a surrogate involved a rather unusual form of direct insemination in which the woman first donned a saddle, or that there were payments to be made that were less than appropriate, or that there was something else so twisted only an Alabama Republican could come up with it in the arrangement. I suspect his goal is that we'll never know.