Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
I never really got the sense he was trying to tell us that he didn’t do it.
Yeah, he never outright admitted any of it, but he didn’t exactly deny either.
|
I got the same sense from his comments to the media. He seemed to have recognized that he'd been sleazy in the past. But this does not mean he had to give up his job.
The punishment of Franken was wildly disproportionate to the crime. In any other normal time, rather than at the peak of #metoo, people would have reacted to Franken in a circumspect manner. His timing was bad. A mob wanted every #metoo violator's head and was unable and unwilling to differentiate the behaviors of a Weinstein from a Charlie Rose from a Franken from an Aziz Ansari.
Zero tolerance = Zero thinking. Franken gave up too soon and paid a price far too high, and we're all much poorer for it. Gillibrand is a useless operator, driven only by her own ambition. Franken was actually a thoughtful legislator with a voice. And yet she persists, adjusting her every syllable to the latest polls, maneuvering and conniving to appear as Presidential mettle. Franken sits silent, a voice of reason we very much need in the Senate, probably touching up scripts and doing some executive producing.
One last point on Franken... Ty suggested that I was arguing that Gillibrand cannot be elected President because of what she did to Franken. This is incorrect. Gillibrand cannot be elected President because Gillibrand is a lousy candidate with nothing original to say. She wouldn't last five minutes in a debate with Warren or Harris. She's an entirely political confection, saccharine, hollow... the utterly vacant creation of focus groups, consultants, and donors.
Threaded Mode