Should Al Franken Resign?

[Cow Poke]

And then they can slap them with a gag order so that they can never talk about it.

The phrase "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" comes to mind.

[carpedm9587]

I think the media tends to be more liberal, and very aggressively goes after somebody like Moore, but Franken seems to get a pass (up till recently, anyway) because he issued a "cover my butt" apology.

So, yeah, the same standard should be applied to all, and the thing that really bothers me is this alleged slush fund that Washington DC biggies can draw on to pay off their accusers.

I am familiar with the strong anti-mainstream-media bias from the right, and I have to admit I think it is at play here. I have found the so-called mainstream media goes aggressively after anything that will get them eyeballs. MSNBC is the one outlet that I think is trying to copy the Fox business model on the opposite side, which is why I take both MSNBC and Fox with a grain of salt and go looking for WSJ, NYT, Forbes, and CBS (to name a few) and try to make sure I get my news from multiple corroborating sources across the political spectrum. In that effort, http://www.allsides.com is an excellent resource.

Franken issued an apology and called for an investigation, which reduced the "attractiveness" of the story. Indeed, it made the main story the unusual case of a public figure publicly apologizing and calling for an investigation of themselves. Was it a "cover his butt" apology, a clever political ploy, or a genuine/heartfelt apology? Making that judgment requires me to look into the heart of the man, and I cannot see into another man's heart. Until I have cause to do otherwise, I tend to take people at their word.

Moore, for example, has denied the charges against him. I wasn't there, and I do not know that Moore has a history of lying, so I have to suspend judgment. My issue with Moore (in terms of the accusations) is the way he has publicly attacked his accusers. My issue with Moore politically has to do with his disregard for our Constitution. Clinton is a different story. He has been accused by multiple people, but he has a history of sexually inappropriate action, has a history of lying to dodge accusations (and has been caught several times), and he publicly attacked his accusers. I think it is VERY likely he did what he was accused of, and I do not trust his denials. Trump was likewise accused. He has a history of lying, has published a book explicitly stating that he believes lying is appropriate if it gets him what he wants, is on tape bragging about being sexually abusive, and has said some amazingly inappropriate things throughout his career (on sexual themes). He clearly has a general attitude of entitlement and needs approval at every turn. He also attacked his accusers. I think the odds that he did what he was accused of is high, and his attack of his accusers is unacceptable.

The list goes on. Now perhaps you have cause to doubt Franken's denial, as I feel I have cause to doubt Trump and Clinton's denials. I simply do not. And yes, I have read the book with his observation about the political world running by different rules.

The slush funds are abyssmal. That they exist in our government, have existed in the entertainment industry, Fox, and multiple other venues is reprehensible. It is not so much the funds themselves - I DO think some restitution is due, monetary or otherwise. It is the requirement of secrecy for accepting the funds. And, in government, it is the use of my tax dollars to pay off abusers.

[Cow Poke]

I am familiar with the strong anti-mainstream-media bias from the right,

They have worked hard to earn that reputation!

and I have to admit I think it is at play here. I have found the so-called mainstream media goes aggressively after anything that will get them eyeballs. MSNBC is the one outlet that I think is trying to copy the Fox business model on the opposite side, which is why I take both MSNBC and Fox with a grain of salt and go looking for WSJ, NYT, Forbes, and CBS (to name a few) and try to make sure I get my news from multiple corroborating sources across the political spectrum. In that effort, http://www.allsides.com is an excellent resource.

Franken issued an apology and called for an investigation, which reduced the "attractiveness" of the story. Indeed, it made the main story the unusual case of a public figure publicly apologizing and calling for an investigation of themselves. Was it a "cover his butt" apology, a clever political ploy, or a genuine/heartfelt apology? Making that judgment requires me to look into the heart of the man, and I cannot see into another man's heart. Until I have cause to do otherwise, I tend to take people at their word.

As you are no doubt aware, my view is only God knows the heart, but we can 'examine the fruit'. Franken is a serial offender, it appears. And he had been sanctimoniously speaking out against others who had done similar things, until he got caught.

Moore, for example, has denied the charges against him. I wasn't there, and I do not know that Moore has a history of lying, so I have to suspend judgment.

So, to my point, while you can't see into his heart, you certainly can 'examine the fruit'. And, I'm on record as saying I find his conduct - even if innocent of the charges - creepy.

My issue with Moore (in terms of the accusations) is the way he has publicly attacked his accusers. My issue with Moore politically has to do with his disregard for our Constitution. Clinton is a different story. He has been accused by multiple people, but he has a history of sexually inappropriate action, has a history of lying to dodge accusations (and has been caught several times), and he publicly attacked his accusers. I think it is VERY likely he did what he was accused of, and I do not trust his denials.

Bad fruit.

Trump was likewise accused. He has a history of lying, has published a book explicitly stating that he believes lying is appropriate if it gets him what he wants, is on tape bragging about being sexually abusive, and has said some amazingly inappropriate things throughout his career (on sexual themes). He clearly has a general attitude of entitlement and needs approval at every turn. He also attacked his accusers. I think the odds that he did what he was accused of is high, and his attack of his accusers is unacceptable.

I am certainly no fan of Trump, though you wouldn't know that if you went by the extreme leftist surrogates here on Tweb.

The list goes on. Now perhaps you have cause to doubt Franken's denial, as I feel I have cause to doubt Trump and Clinton's denials. I simply do not. And yes, I have read the book with his observation about the political world running by different rules.

I think Franken is sincerely sorry he got caught, and embarrassed that he unwittingly provided the evidence with that stupid 'photo op'.

The slush funds are abyssmal. That they exist in our government, have existed in the entertainment industry, Fox, and multiple other venues is reprehensible. It is not so much the funds themselves - I DO think some restitution is due, monetary or otherwise. It is the requirement of secrecy for accepting the funds. And, in government, it is the use of my tax dollars to pay off abusers.

The restitution should come from their own funds, and it should be a matter of public record. I think, on that, I'd guess we're pretty much in agreement.

[rogue06]

I think the media tends to be more liberal, and very aggressively goes after somebody like Moore, but Franken seems to get a pass (up till recently, anyway) because he issued a "cover my butt" apology.

So, yeah, the same standard should be applied to all, and the thing that really bothers me is this alleged slush fund that Washington DC biggies can draw on to pay off their accusers.

It looks like the Big 3 network's news coverage is spending far more time continuing to cover Moore than they are with Franken (the later accusations are virtually ignored) or John Conyers (who's accusers include a well known liberal attorney) together in spite of the fact that the former is, by their criteria, "old news" in comparison. And in their coverage of Moore virtually none of it mentions the exculpatory evidence that supports Moore.

[rogue06]

The slush funds are abyssmal. That they exist in our government, have existed in the entertainment industry, Fox, and multiple other venues is reprehensible. It is not so much the funds themselves - I DO think some restitution is due, monetary or otherwise. It is the requirement of secrecy for accepting the funds. And, in government, it is the use of my tax dollars to pay off abusers.

Along with using taxpayer's money to pay off the victim the government also requires the accuser to sign a secrecy agreement in advance or they won't even start an investigation

[Cow Poke]

It looks like the Big 3 network's news coverage is spending far more time continuing to cover Moore than they are with Franken (the later accusations are virtually ignored) or John Conyers (who's accusers include a well known liberal attorney) together in spite of the fact that the former is, by their criteria, "old news" in comparison. And in their coverage of Moore virtually none of it mentions the exculpatory evidence that supports Moore.

As i said...

They have worked hard to earn that reputation!

This, of course, is why FoxNews and others exist. Imagine if we only had the left-sided news agencies on this.

[Cow Poke]

...John Conyers (who's accusers include a well known liberal attorney)...

I often have to think through who's vs whose, and it's vs its.

(Thought I'd grab that before my fellow grammar-nazi caught it, because I love you, brudder)

[rogue06]

I often have to think through who's vs whose, and it's vs its.

(Thought I'd grab that before my fellow grammar-nazi caught it, because I love you, brudder)

meh. I don't think I'll ever get it right so I no longer worry about it.

[Cow Poke]

meh. I don't think I'll ever get it right so I no longer worry about it.

I'll do my best to ... um... overlook.....

[rogue06]

I'll do my best to ... um... overlook.....

better?

It looks like the Big 3 network's news coverage is spending far more time continuing too cover Moore then they are with Franken (the later accusations are virtually ignored) or John Conyers (who's accusers include a well known liberal attorney) together in spite of the fact that the former is, by there criteria, "old news" in comparison. And in they're coverage of Moore virtually none of it mentions the exculpatory evidence that supports Moore.

[Cow Poke]

better?

I'm calling my therapist.

[rogue06]

I'm calling my therapist.

Okay, okay. Calm down

It looks like the Big 3 network's news coverage is spending far more time continuing too cover Moore then they are with Franken (the later accusations are virtually ignored) or John Conyers (who's accusers include a well known liberal attorney) together in spite of the fact that the former is, by there criteria, "old news" in comparison. And in they're coverage of Moore virtually none of it mentions the exculpatory evidence that supports Moore.

Better?

[Mountain Man]

And in their coverage of Moore virtually none of it mentions the exculpatory evidence that supports Moore.

That's, like, really surprising. No, really.

[carpedm9587]

OK - I'm tracking the pretty solid stream of MSM this and MSM that in this thread. What are you folks looking at? Far left sites (e.g., Huffington Post, Mother Jones) are still on it, mostly anti-Moore. Far right sites (e.g., Fox, Brietbart) are pounding on Franken (and how bad the MSM is). CNN has one article about Moore's wife. Other than that, a news search reveals no articles on either man since 11/21 - three days ago, and most are simply reporting who said what to whom, and who made what announcement.

So what are you all looking at? Can I get a few links?

I'd also like to know what evidence has surfaced that Moore is innocent. I have not seen anything other than his denial.

[Teallaura]

He has not only not denied it but said it was meant as a joke. I posted Stephen Colbert's excellent response yesterday to that explanation:

....

Um, I was addressing only the photo - which to my knowledge, he did not deny. The kiss is at issue and I only noted as much.

To be fair, IMHBAO, anonymous accusers should be taken with a grain of salt.

I see no reason to take them at all. I wouldn't if they were accusing someone I respected, I shouldn't when they accuse someone I don't respect.