lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jul 23, 2019 16:39:10 GMT
I agree with you. I also think it's gross that people are mad at Kirsten Gillibrand when 35 Senators did the same thing. She was just the bravest first. And, I agree that Mayer's article minimized the inappropriate actions of men. And if people are going to get angry at Gillibrand, then they need to direct some of their fury toward Hirono, Cantwell, Stabenow, Harris, Murray, Feinstein, and the rest of the female Democrats who called him out. That is, if they wish to be fair. Frankly, I’m puzzled why The New Yorker is even re-litigating this. My guess is Franken is thinking of re-entering politics, which is very well his right if that’s the case.
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Jul 23, 2019 16:50:42 GMT
I agree with you. I also think it's gross that people are mad at Kirsten Gillibrand when 35 Senators did the same thing. She was just the bravest first. And, I agree that Mayer's article minimized the inappropriate actions of men. And if people are going to get angry at Gillibrand, then they need to direct some of their fury toward Hirono, Cantwell, Stabenow, Harris, Murray, Feinstein, and the rest of the female Democrats who called him out. That is, if they wish to be fair. Frankly, I’m puzzled why The New Yorker is even re-litigating this. My guess is Franken is thinking of re-entering politics, which is very well his right if that’s the case. I agree that the timing is strange.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jul 23, 2019 16:51:19 GMT
I agree with you. I also think it's gross that people are mad at Kirsten Gillibrand when 35 Senators did the same thing. She was just the bravest first. And, I agree that Mayer's article minimized the inappropriate actions of men. And if people are going to get angry at Gillibrand, then they need to direct some of their fury toward Hirono, Cantwell, Stabenow, Harris, Murray, Feinstein, and the rest of the female Democrats who called him out. That is, if they wish to be fair. Frankly, I’m puzzled why The New Yorker is even re-litigating this. My guess is Franken is thinking of re-entering politics, which is very well his right if that’s the case.
I actually had a similar question - but didn't jump to him re-entering politics. The rehashing of this does exactly ZERO good for the democrats - unless it's a democrat running against Gillibrand. It feels like a side hatchet job on her - either to bolster her primary opponents or to set her up to be hated if she does get the nomination. Start convincing Democrats now that she's unlikable and unelectable.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jul 23, 2019 16:52:24 GMT
I got into an argument on twitter about this. It was badly done, IMO. He was entitled to a hearing, and should not have been pressured to resign. No matter what the outcome, it should have been investigated. Schumer bears a lot of the blame for this. But like, entitled to a hearing and needing a hearing to come to the conclusion that you did shitty things are two different things. This wealthy man landed on his feet, and these were the consequences of his actions. Do you think that a hearing would have been good for the state? Good for his family? Do you think he was innocent of all 8 complaints? Do you think that he knew he probably acted inappropriately and thus felt it would be better to just step down? Maybe an investigation was warranted, but ultimately Al Franken made the choice to step down. slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/al-franken-jane-mayer-new-yorker-leeann-tweeden.htmlI think that an investigation is warranted any time that serious accusations are made. I have no idea what the outcome would have been, but that’s not really the point. And he stepped down after getting an ultimatum from Schumer. It wasn’t truly voluntary.
|
|
|
Post by papersilly on Jul 23, 2019 16:54:08 GMT
i, too, think that he should never have resigned.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jul 23, 2019 17:00:03 GMT
And if people are going to get angry at Gillibrand, then they need to direct some of their fury toward Hirono, Cantwell, Stabenow, Harris, Murray, Feinstein, and the rest of the female Democrats who called him out. That is, if they wish to be fair. Frankly, I’m puzzled why The New Yorker is even re-litigating this. My guess is Franken is thinking of re-entering politics, which is very well his right if that’s the case.
I actually had a similar question - but didn't jump to him re-entering politics. The rehashing of this does exactly ZERO good for the democrats - unless it's a democrat running against Gillibrand. It feels like a side hatchet job on her - either to bolster her primary opponents or to set her up to be hated if she does get the nomination. Start convincing Democrats now that she's unlikable and unelectable. Could very well be, but she's not polling well at all, and never has even from the beginning. I never considered her as anywhere near being the likely nominee. I don't know. At the end of the day, I really don't know the impetus behind that article.
|
|
likescarrots
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,879
Aug 16, 2014 17:52:53 GMT
|
Post by likescarrots on Jul 23, 2019 17:09:54 GMT
Maybe it’s just my twitter feed, but I am noticing the Franken’s harshest critics seem to be very young. Has anyone else noticed this? I, for one, an glad that younger generations are no longer willing to put up with this kind of bullshit. I work with a number of women almost a decade younger than me and I am constantly in awe at their ability and willingness to defend themselves and each other. And this is from someone who was referred to as 'the feminazi' in my highschool, so I'm not exactly meek. I have directly benefitted from some of the work these younger women are doing.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 23, 2019 17:11:41 GMT
I disagree with most who’ve posted so far. I’m surprised this piece was written by Mayer. She’s usually more objective than this. She seemed to have forgotten that Menz, Dupuy, Kemplin, a congressional aide and 2 (or 3?) others had revealed what happened to them, albeit some of them wanted to preserve their privacy by remaining anonymous. And in most of these, it’s been established by confidantes and family members that the claims were credible. Grabbing a woman’s butt during a photo op, forcibly kissing another, groping another’s breast (not just pretending, but actually groping) were just some of the allegations. The focus of the article was on one woman. There were eight accusers in total. Franken was not the victim, and it’s my opinion that the Dems would not have had the moral authority they had during the Kavanaugh hearing had Franken stayed on. Try and imagine Franken questioning Kavanaugh on Ford’s allegation while he himself was being accused by eight women. If he, indeed, wanted a hearing by the ethics committee (which would have involved an investigation), he could very well have told Schumer to back off and wait for the outcome. He was not railroaded. He caved to pressure, and that was his decision, not the decision of anyone else around him. I’m with Gillibrand on this specific issue and will even go as far as to say that if I was in her position, I would have done the same thing: "It's his decision and his alone whether to wait out his ethics committee hearing, whether to wait for his next election. The decision I made was whether or not to carry his water and stay silent. And given 8 allegations, two since he was Senator, and the eighth one being a congressional staffer, I couldn't stay silent." She may very well be held directly responsible for the ousting of a popular senator and it may even be a factor in her unpopularity as a candidate, but I stand firmly on her side on this. Were the allegations against Franken as grave as those leveled against Trump or Kavanaugh? Probably not all of them, but sexual harassment in any form IS a problem regardless of how varied the forms are, and something that should no longer be tolerated and defended. I refuse to be someone who condemns Republicans for their misconduct against women and at the same time be an apologist for Democrats in theirs. This article, in my opinion, is one of those things that happen to women who do speak out: You’ll get a hit piece in one of the more respected publications. Then we wonder why more women do not speak out. I Liked your post because you’re probably the one person here who might be able to talk me to the other side, on any topic.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jul 23, 2019 17:25:57 GMT
I Liked your post because you’re probably the one person here who might be able to talk me to the other side, on any topic. You're being kind, as always. I'd better be damn sure I never walk on the "dark side." Lol.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jul 23, 2019 17:48:48 GMT
Maybe it’s just my twitter feed, but I am noticing the Franken’s harshest critics seem to be very young. Has anyone else noticed this? I, for one, an glad that younger generations are no longer willing to put up with this kind of bullshit. I work with a number of women almost a decade younger than me and I am constantly in awe at their ability and willingness to defend themselves and each other. And this is from someone who was referred to as 'the feminazi' in my highschool, so I'm not exactly meek. I have directly benefitted from some of the work these younger women are doing. I’m all for not putting up with bullshit. I just also happen to believe that anyone who is accused of something serious is entitled to an investigation, no matter the outcome.
|
|
likescarrots
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,879
Aug 16, 2014 17:52:53 GMT
|
Post by likescarrots on Jul 23, 2019 17:53:21 GMT
I, for one, an glad that younger generations are no longer willing to put up with this kind of bullshit. I work with a number of women almost a decade younger than me and I am constantly in awe at their ability and willingness to defend themselves and each other. And this is from someone who was referred to as 'the feminazi' in my highschool, so I'm not exactly meek. I have directly benefitted from some of the work these younger women are doing. I’m all for not putting up with bullshit. I just also happen to believe that anyone who is accused of something serious is entitled to an investigation, no matter the outcome. he was entitled to one. He decided he didn't want one. I doubt it would have gone well for him and he knew that. It's easy for him to sit back now and say he regrets that decision when it's no longer on the table and there's nothing for him to lose.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jul 23, 2019 17:58:04 GMT
I’m all for not putting up with bullshit. I just also happen to believe that anyone who is accused of something serious is entitled to an investigation, no matter the outcome. he was entitled to one. He decided he didn't want one. I doubt it would have gone well for him and he knew that. It's easy for him to sit back now and say he regrets that decision when it's no longer on the table and there's nothing for him to lose. This is actually what happened. “Franken asked to meet with Schumer, who suggested talking at his apartment in downtown D.C., in order to avoid the press. “It was like a scene out of a movie,” Franken recalled. Schumer sat on the edge of his bed while Franken and his wife, who had come to lend moral support, pleaded for more time. According to Franken, Schumer told him to quit by 5 p.m.; otherwise, he would instruct the entire Democratic caucus to demand Franken’s resignation. Schumer’s spokesperson denied that Schumer had threatened to organize the rest of the caucus against Franken. But he confirmed that Schumer told Franken that he needed to announce his resignation by five o’clock. Schumer also said that if Franken stayed he could be censured and stripped of committee assignments. “I couldn’t believe it,” Franken told me. “I asked him for due process and he said no.” Sure, he could have hung around, shunned and stripped of his committees. IMO, Schumer made his stay untenable.
|
|
likescarrots
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,879
Aug 16, 2014 17:52:53 GMT
|
Post by likescarrots on Jul 23, 2019 18:54:09 GMT
he was entitled to one. He decided he didn't want one. I doubt it would have gone well for him and he knew that. It's easy for him to sit back now and say he regrets that decision when it's no longer on the table and there's nothing for him to lose. This is actually what happened. “Franken asked to meet with Schumer, who suggested talking at his apartment in downtown D.C., in order to avoid the press. “It was like a scene out of a movie,” Franken recalled. Schumer sat on the edge of his bed while Franken and his wife, who had come to lend moral support, pleaded for more time. According to Franken, Schumer told him to quit by 5 p.m.; otherwise, he would instruct the entire Democratic caucus to demand Franken’s resignation. Schumer’s spokesperson denied that Schumer had threatened to organize the rest of the caucus against Franken. But he confirmed that Schumer told Franken that he needed to announce his resignation by five o’clock. Schumer also said that if Franken stayed he could be censured and stripped of committee assignments. “I couldn’t believe it,” Franken told me. “I asked him for due process and he said no.” Sure, he could have hung around, shunned and stripped of his committees. IMO, Schumer made his stay untenable. He could have stayed and if the investigation found no wrongdoing he would have been reinstated to his committees. He chose to resign without an investigation. There is not a doubt in my mind that part of that choice was to spare his family from the humiliation that would have come from making his actions public. I personally thought he did the right thing and he had earned back a modicum of my respect, but rehashing this looks ugly from him.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jul 23, 2019 19:29:49 GMT
This is actually what happened. “Franken asked to meet with Schumer, who suggested talking at his apartment in downtown D.C., in order to avoid the press. “It was like a scene out of a movie,” Franken recalled. Schumer sat on the edge of his bed while Franken and his wife, who had come to lend moral support, pleaded for more time. According to Franken, Schumer told him to quit by 5 p.m.; otherwise, he would instruct the entire Democratic caucus to demand Franken’s resignation. Schumer’s spokesperson denied that Schumer had threatened to organize the rest of the caucus against Franken. But he confirmed that Schumer told Franken that he needed to announce his resignation by five o’clock. Schumer also said that if Franken stayed he could be censured and stripped of committee assignments. “I couldn’t believe it,” Franken told me. “I asked him for due process and he said no.” Sure, he could have hung around, shunned and stripped of his committees. IMO, Schumer made his stay untenable. He could have stayed and if the investigation found no wrongdoing he would have been reinstated to his committees. He chose to resign without an investigation. There is not a doubt in my mind that part of that choice was to spare his family from the humiliation that would have come from making his actions public. I personally thought he did the right thing and he had earned back a modicum of my respect, but rehashing this looks ugly from him. We will agree to disagree. The way that this was done, coupled with the fact that a Democrat would be appointed to take his place, and the fact that Roy Moore was a candidate for the Senate(and Democrats were concerned about optics if Franken hung around) just reeks of political expediency. YMMV.
|
|
melissa
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,912
Jun 25, 2014 20:45:00 GMT
|
Post by melissa on Jul 23, 2019 19:52:44 GMT
Franken was not the victim, and it’s my opinion that the Dems would not have had the moral authority they had during the Kavanaugh hearing had Franken stayed on Sadly, I don't think there is actually any "moral authority" left in Washington DC politics.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 7:30:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2019 19:57:02 GMT
I’m old so I get to tell stories to make my point..
In the 1990’s a 12 year old girl was kidnapped from her bedroom during a slumber party. Her body was found in a shallow grave along the freeway. They caught the guy and found out he had previous arrests and convictions. There was an outcry because people felt this guy should have never gotten out of jail.
What happened to Polly Klass partly led to the creation of CA three strikes law. Anyone who committed a crime and had two previous felony convictions automatically received a sentence of 25 years to life, no matter what the crime was. Which ended up sending folks who committed non-violent crimes to jail for life and caused a big mess. Eventually all or part of the 3 strike law was repealed.
There is no question #metoo was not only a good thing but necessary as well. The idea that women could not tell their stories and be believed really is a black eye for society.
Having said that, the #metoo movement has to be careful they don’t go too far and create their own version of the 3 strike law that while giving women a voice, they become too quick to judge and dish out punishment without looking at the big or entire picture first. Because IMO, it takes away from the voice women have to tell what happened to them and to be believed.
As to Al Franken. To me there is a scale of 1-10 for sexual attacks/abuse/harassment/inappropriate touching. 10 being the worse. Men like trump, who think it’s their right to grab women belong close to the top. Not quite a 10, maybe an 8. Men like Biden, who still doesn’t get his touching is not acceptable to most if not all women would be closer to 1 and I say that because I think he is just plain clueless while trump is a predator.
Where do I think Franken belongs? Down with Biden. I believe he just didn’t think, that was clear in that photo. I think his apology was genuine.
So the question, in my mind, do we educate men that their actions are not acceptable in cases like Franken’s or take the attitude they are all the same and the only recourse is to punish them?
As to Gillibrand. IMO she saw a way to use Franken as way to springboard to a presidential run. And the Senators that followed her lead, she made such a big fuss about Franken, that any Senator that didn’t support Franken’s ouster would be seen as not supporting #metoo.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jul 23, 2019 20:01:30 GMT
Franken was not the victim, and it’s my opinion that the Dems would not have had the moral authority they had during the Kavanaugh hearing had Franken stayed on Sadly, I don't think there is actually any "moral authority" left in Washington DC politics. In my viewpoint, there is. Every time I look at a piece of legislation that I know will aid the disadvantaged, or will protect the livelihood of working people, or will preserve their heathcare, or will protect civil rights, or will ensure the ability of minorities to vote, etc, I know that moral authority still exists.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,015
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Jul 23, 2019 20:04:22 GMT
Some of which were anonymous, some disputed by other witnesses and IMO, the last one, the one that really did him in, was laughable and an insult to women with actual claims. ETA: And I know we're not supposed to ever think that, let alone even say it out loud. But I don't believe every single claim has merit just because someone feels offended. And this is why there should be due process every single time.
Franken was one of the best Senators we had and for sure, he was the best Democrat on Judiciary and if he was still there, things might look a lot different right now, including the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. So yes, I think we lost something substantial. I won't side with a proven liar like Tweeden and I won't be shamed into saying that Gillibrand bears no responsibility; she absolutely should be held accountable in the court of public opinion for her leading role in the rush to condemn him without a full investigation. She doesn't get to play this both ways but she sure spends a lot of time whining about being treated unfairly because she's a woman. No one is going after Kamala in the same way even though Kamala was in the initial group suggesting he should resign and the reason is because Kamala didn't capitalize on it to raise her own profile for the Presidential race nor has she tried using the whole situation as her primary fundraising pitch as Gillibrand has.
The article also provides a lengthy examination of the circumstances behind the photograph from multiple witnesses and of course, while it was a gross photo, it was not as black and white as the rush to judgment made it appear. And you know, maybe after a full examination, public opinion still would have said "ugh, gross, he has to go." But that's not what happened. And in a nation of laws, that is what is supposed to happen. But instead we live in this tabloid journalism, 15 minute news cycle where everything is discovered, researched, litigated and judgment rendered in the blink of an eye.
|
|
melissa
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,912
Jun 25, 2014 20:45:00 GMT
|
Post by melissa on Jul 23, 2019 21:25:06 GMT
Sadly, I don't think there is actually any "moral authority" left in Washington DC politics. In my viewpoint, there is. Every time I look at a piece of legislation that I know will aid the disadvantaged, or will protect the livelihood of working people, or will preserve their heathcare, or will protect civil rights, or will ensure the ability of minorities to vote, etc, I know that moral authority still exists. Let's keep the hope alive with that! I have clearly been in an insufficient hope zone lately. I needed that.
|
|