Should Al Franken Resign?

[carpedm9587]

Just an additional thought. Franken resigned because of the damage his continuation would do to the body he was representing. He admitted some wrong doing - and denied other. Conyer and Franks are basically doing the same thing. Conyer has denied as well, but resigned nonetheless. Franks has admitted his actions and resigned, largely for the same reasons.

But Moore is on a mission. The damage his candidacy is likely to do to his party, the reputation of his state, none of that matters.

I do not know if the man is guilty or not. I do know that a candidate under this type of shroud is a liability. I also know that a member of the judiciary that does not understand his reponsibilities under the U.S. law and places his religion above his duties as a U.S. government official does not belong in Congress or any other public office. His choices (twice) as a Supreme Court justice, and his proclamations about the suitability of an elected representative to be seated on the basis of his religion SHOULD exclude him from running for office.

And I predict (but we shall have to see) that his election will serve as a further item to polarize the electorate, and rally the left to the polls in 2018 and 2020. If there is a positive thing to be gleaned from his election, perhaps that will be it. We need to restore balance to our government, balance that is currently sorely lacking. It was lacking in 2008, and the pendulum has now swung too far in the opposite direction, IMO.

[Mountain Man]

Sorry, I don't believe for a second that Conyers and Franken are innocent men who honorably resigned so as not to be a "distraction". There is evidence that they both did wrong -- Conyers is known to have dipped into the "hush money" that Congress had set aside for that purpose, and Franken was literally caught in the act on camera.

In Moore's case, all we have are unsubstantiated allegations from accusers who have zero credibility at this point. Moore also has a number of character witnesses, including women he dated and professional colleagues, who have stepped forward to challenge the accusations.

The only ones who will see Moore's win as damaging to the Republican party and the state of Alabama are dupes like Jimmy and Starlight who base their opinions on liberal propaganda and fake news instead of the facts.

[Mountain Man]

Oh, I get it now, Carpe is just running with with the latest Democrat talking point.

Politico: "Why Democrats Win Even If They Lose In Alabama"

[carpedm9587]

Sorry, I don't believe for a second that Conyers and Franken are innocent men who honorably resigned so as not to be a "distraction". There is evidence that they both did wrong -- Conyers is known to have dipped into the "hush money" that Congress had set aside for that purpose, and Franken was literally caught in the act on camera.

At no point have I said anything about anyone's guilt or innocence. I have been clear that I do not know who is or is not guilty, beyond what has been confessed to and apologized for, and what there is direct, publicly available evidence of.

In Moore's case, all we have are unsubstantiated allegations from accusers who have zero credibility at this point. Moore also has a number of character witnesses, including women he dated and professional colleagues, who have stepped forward to challenge the accusations.

I'm sorry, MM, but Brietbart is not a source I find compelling - they are simply too far to the right, have too much of a history of creating stories and publishing falsehoods. I do not have the time to vet everything they publish, so I simply do not use them. For the record, I feel the same way about Jezebel, Mother Jones, and Huffington Post. From what I can tell, there are people stepping forward to defend him, and people stepping forward to accuse him. I have not found a basis for accepting or dimissing any of their claims.

The only ones who will see Moore's win as damaging to the Republican party and the state of Alabama are dupes like Jimmy and Starlight who base their opinions on liberal propaganda and fake news instead of the facts.

We shall see. Time will tell.

[carpedm9587]

Oh, I get it now, Carpe is just running with with the latest Democrat talking point.

Politico: "Why Democrats Win Even If They Lose In Alabama"

I have never seen the article, and I do not read Politico.

[Terraceth]

As I've said before, it really doesn't make a lot of difference. Moore will be elected on Tuesday. It probably won't even be a narrow margin. Things that used to bring down politicians simply don't anymore. As long as they are flying the colors of the party in the majority, they pretty much get elected.

I'm a little confused about what you mean here. You say "things that used to bring down politicians simply don't anymore" but how is it particularly different now than before? The ability to definitely win your election despite any number of scandals because your district/state is so heavily inclined towards your party's platform isn't anything particularly new.

Note I'm referring to the main election. If all this came out in the primary I don't think Moore would have won the nomination.

[Teallaura]

Just an additional thought. Franken resigned because of the damage his continuation would do to the body he was representing. He admitted some wrong doing - and denied other. Conyer and Franks are basically doing the same thing. Conyer has denied as well, but resigned nonetheless. Franks has admitted his actions and resigned, largely for the same reasons.

But Moore is on a mission. The damage his candidacy is likely to do to his party, the reputation of his state, none of that matters.

I do not know if the man is guilty or not. I do know that a candidate under this type of shroud is a liability. I also know that a member of the judiciary that does not understand his reponsibilities under the U.S. law and places his religion above his duties as a U.S. government official does not belong in Congress or any other public office. His choices (twice) as a Supreme Court justice, and his proclamations about the suitability of an elected representative to be seated on the basis of his religion SHOULD exclude him from running for office.

And I predict (but we shall have to see) that his election will serve as a further item to polarize the electorate, and rally the left to the polls in 2018 and 2020. If there is a positive thing to be gleaned from his election, perhaps that will be it. We need to restore balance to our government, balance that is currently sorely lacking. It was lacking in 2008, and the pendulum has now swung too far in the opposite direction, IMO.

Um, back up a sec - you are aware that the picture of Franken 'groping' the woman is evidence of the reprisal, and not the main accusation, right?

Those points have some validity but I disagree that we as the electorate should tolerate obvious political hit jobs (six weeks before the special election? Really? Couldn't mention this sometime sooner - like in the last two decades of the man's career?). If we let any and all accusers destroy careers then we are no longer a representative government - only those with the loudest accusers will actually get representation.

The shroud we need to worry about is the political hit job. The Media has no right to run people out of office - if the case can't be made in court, it shouldn't be won in the media. That's not justice, it's just nasty blackmail.

[carpedm9587]

I'm a little confused about what you mean here. You say "things that used to bring down politicians simply don't anymore" but how is it particularly different now than before? The ability to definitely win your election despite any number of scandals because your district/state is so heavily inclined towards your party's platform isn't anything particularly new.

Note I'm referring to the main election. If all this came out in the primary I don't think Moore would have won the nomination.

There was a day, Terr, which I remember because I've been watching elections since the 1960s, when a tape like the Access Hollywood tape, or accusations like the ones that have come out against Moore, or physically attacking a reporter, as occurred in Montana, would have sunk a candidate, primary or main election. We were less tribal in that day. If that were not true, Reagan could not have secured the landslides he did. Clinton could not have won so overwhelmingly.

But all of that has changed. There is no one factor behind it - but the American electorate has become increasingly tribal in its voting, and the merits of the candidate and the behavior of the candidate simply have paled behind party solidarity. The opposing party is no longer the "loyal opposition," it is "the enemy." Compromising is not an avenue to progress and finding common ground - it is a betrayal of the tribe. We can have an argument about which party started it - but both parties are doing it today.

IMO, there is no other way a man like Trump could have won. Understanding that his "Apprentice" personal gave him an incredible edge in his field of candidates, his juvenile name calling (i.e., Little Marco, Lying Ted, Crooked Hillary, etc.), his outrageous comments (e.g., I could shoot someone and not lose support), his incessant lying, his obvious narccism and thin skin, all of them combined with his mocking, his comments about gold-star families, and all of the rest should have made him a non-starter. Instead, he's celebrated as "not PC," his lies are taken up, repeated and defended, even when they are documentably false. His string of broken promises stretches out behind him.

Trump is one thing to perfection: he knows how to control and play the media. He's a borderline genius at it. So now we have a reality TV show instead of a respected White House.

I actually agree with a significant number of his policies though not all), but his leadership is horrible, his political skills are virtually non-existent, his business skills (if he has any) are nowhere to be seen in his execution of his role. This country elected a persona - and it lacks much substance, IMO.

It is my hope that the Republican party will come to its senses and run a respectable candidate against him in the 2020 primaries. If not, and Trump is on the 2020 ticket, I will be voting for whoever is running against him. I can say that sight unseen because I cannot imagine anyone running for office that would be worse than what we have now.

I can just see the responses to THIS post coming....

[Mountain Man]

Brietbart is not a source I find compelling - they are simply too far to the right, have too much of a history of creating stories and publishing falsehoods.

First of all, even if that's true, it doesn't in anyway refute the endorsement of Moore's friends and colleagues. Your own personal skepticism is not proof that this story is false, and unless you have something better than that, we have no good reason to doubt that it's true.

Secondly, I'm going to give you same the challenge I've given to other liberals on this site who question Breitbart's integrity: Please present examples of Breitbart publishing fake news and "falsehoods". You say they have a history of it, so this should be trivial. And I mean something other than them publishing a story that you happen to disagree with -- like the fact that Moore's friends and colleagues doubt the accusations based on Moore's character.

[Teallaura]

There was a day, Terr, which I remember because I've been watching elections since the 1960s, when a tape like the Access Hollywood tape, or accusations like the ones that have come out against Moore, or physically attacking a reporter, as occurred in Montana, would have sunk a candidate, primary or main election. We were less tribal in that day. If that were not true, Reagan could not have secured the landslides he did. Clinton could not have won so overwhelmingly.
...

Okay, you're a little older than me - I started watching (and understanding) in the Seventies. But history isn't with you here. King and JFK both had known accusations - which the media ignored in large part. Sexual harassment wasn't a 'thing' and chasing your secretary around the desk was a comedic gag - it was 'just boy stuff'.

Clinton won because women were ignored, wrongfully attacked - and mostly because Hillary stood beside him. I voted for him because his wife - the person he wronged - had forgiven him.

I wouldn't have the second time had the Lewinsky matter broken before the election. I still do not think he should have been impeached - would have been nice if he'd had the decency to resign, however.

The point is, the 'good old days' weren't all that good. Yeah, you couldn't have had the free flying accusations of today - but instead you had a really big rug and a media proficient with the broom.

[carpedm9587]

Um, back up a sec - you are aware that the picture of Franken 'groping' the woman is evidence of the reprisal, and not the main accusation, right?

There have been multiple accusations aimed at Franken. The picture was only one - and was the one he apologized for. The others has has denied or has stated he "doesn't remember them that way." I am not aware of a "main accusation" given the number of total accusations.

When I look at Franken, I find myself wondering what would come out of the woodwork if I were to run for office. I used to work at a business that was pretty "loose." There was a lot of teasing, jokes, and horseplay that had a sexual dimension to it. We all checked with each other, now and then, to make sure a line wasn't crossed, but I can easily see how someone might enter that company, find it all too much, and then leave - only later to accuse people within the company of "sexual harassment." From their perspective, it would have been - and I would feel terrible if I discovered that any of our joking around had ever made someone feel that way. Is that what Franken is guilty of, or is there more? The fact is, I don't know.

Those points have some validity but I disagree that we as the electorate should tolerate obvious political hit jobs (six weeks before the special election? Really? Couldn't mention this sometime sooner - like in the last two decades of the man's career?). If we let any and all accusers destroy careers then we are no longer a representative government - only those with the loudest accusers will actually get representation.

What seems an "obvious political hit job" does not seem so to me. Newspapers go after stories, and candidates are prime targets. If that story hits 6 months before an election or just before an election does not change the nature of the story. That there is a history of "October surprises" (as they are called) is no surprise, because the paper with the "scoop" is going to get the eyeballs.

As for these accusations coming out years before, even Hannity had this one right: a single woman putting herself out there on the strength of her claim alone and facing a powerful and beloved man is likely to find the whole thing too intimidating to speak - I have no problem seeing that as a very valid reality. The WaPo found multiple women, and convinced them to come out as a group - and I can see how that kind of solidarity would work - especially in the middle of an apparent cultural shift on how much we tolerate sexual harassment in the workplace. There have been a flood of such disclosures in the past couple of months.

As for the rest of your observation - we are already far afield of a "representative" government. The "loudest voices" in our society are not those with the worsdt accusations - they are the ones with the most money. IMO, we now have a government that is significantly "bought and paid for" by big business. That doesn't always just take the form of bribes - it also takes the form of paid advertising that the vast majority of Americans are too happy to lap up uncritically if it aligns with their existing political biases.

The shroud we need to worry about is the political hit job. The Media has no right to run people out of office - if the case can't be made in court, it shouldn't be won in the media. That's not justice, it's just nasty blackmail.

I think you err in conflating the world of law with the world of politics. A politician needs to not only be on the right side of the law, they also need to be on the right side of the people. I can be perfectly legal and still have an odious reputation and repugnant practices and policies. I am anti-Moore, not because I think he is guilty of pedophilia (which I do not know to be true), but because he flagrantly places his relgiious views above the constitution that he, as an elected official, is sworn to protect and defend. I have no problem with someone saying "god before country." I DO have a problem with someone acting on that as a sworn, elected official, if their faith runs counter to the Constitution they have sworn to defend.

[carpedm9587]

Okay, you're a little older than me - I started watching (and understanding) in the Seventies. But history isn't with you here. King and JFK both had known accusations - which the media ignored in large part. Sexual harassment wasn't a 'thing' and chasing your secretary around the desk was a comedic gag - it was 'just boy stuff'.

Clinton won because women were ignored, wrongfully attacked - and mostly because Hillary stood beside him. I voted for him because his wife - the person he wronged - had forgiven him.

I wouldn't have the second time had the Lewinsky matter broken before the election. I still do not think he should have been impeached - would have been nice if he'd had the decency to resign, however.

The point is, the 'good old days' weren't all that good. Yeah, you couldn't have had the free flying accusations of today - but instead you had a really big rug and a media proficient with the broom.

I cannot argue with any of those observations. I may be guilty of "romancifying the past."

I do know I am tired and sick with the way our political climate has devolved. The greatest risk to our democracy, I believe, is the breakdown in civil discourse, and an uninformed electorate. The willingness of our current electorate to rally to the defense of ANY information from ANY source that defends their existing POV is dangerous in the extreme.

[carpedm9587]

First of all, even if that's true, it doesn't in anyway refute the endorsement of Moore's friends and colleagues. Your own personal skepticism is not proof that this story is false, and unless you have something better than that, we have no good reason to doubt that it's true.

When faced with people who's motivations I cannot know, who tell opposing stories, my approach is not to select the one I agree with and declare them "true and honest." My approach is to suspedn judgment on something I cannot possible know.

Secondly, I'm going to give you same the challenge I've given to other liberals on this site who question Breitbart's integrity: Please present examples of Breitbart publishing fake news and "falsehoods". You say they have a history of it, so this should be trivial. And I mean something other than them publishing a story that you happen to disagree with -- like the fact that Moore's friends and colleagues doubt the accusations based on Moore's character.

I'm not a "liberal," though I suppose when you are as far to the right as you appear to be, everyone must look pretty "left."

My exception to Brietbart is a combination of a) their false stories, 2) stories that are specifically designed to inflame tensions and are put words in such a way as to do a "wink-wink" "non-nod" to things they are trying to push forward into the media and their readers, and 3) Just repulsive, hate-filled, reporting. Examples of all three include:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8011071.html (false)

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-rape-culture/ (false)

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...in-the-closet/ (repulsive)

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...onesia-hawaii/ (wink-wink, non-nod)

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2...-global-chaos/ (false)

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/1...ive-and-crazy/ (repulsive)

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...itewater-clai/ (unethical practices: they issued a correction, but left the story up as written anyway, so if you don't look for the correction... wink-wink, nod-nod).

I could go on - but I suspect you'll have a dismissal for most of these, which you are perfectly free to do. For myself, I give Brietbart exactly as much attention as I give the National Inquirer, the Sun, and the National Examiner. IMO, they are part of the political problem today.

[Teallaura]

There have been multiple accusations aimed at Franken. The picture was only one - and was the one he apologized for. The others has has denied or has stated he "doesn't remember them that way." I am not aware of a "main accusation" given the number of total accusations.

Sorry, wasn't clear enough - Tweeden's accusation.

When I look at Franken, I find myself wondering what would come out of the woodwork if I were to run for office. I used to work at a business that was pretty "loose." There was a lot of teasing, jokes, and horseplay that had a sexual dimension to it. We all checked with each other, now and then, to make sure a line wasn't crossed, but I can easily see how someone might enter that company, find it all too much, and then leave - only later to accuse people within the company of "sexual harassment." From their perspective, it would have been - and I would feel terrible if I discovered that any of our joking around had ever made someone feel that way. Is that what Franken is guilty of, or is there more? The fact is, I don't know.

Um, no, Franken is accused of trying to force his employee into kissing him in a manner with which she was not comfortable under the guise of 'practice' for a skit. When she was thereafter no longer willing to be around him, he is accused of reprisal by making the picture while she was asleep.

What seems an "obvious political hit job" does not seem so to me. Newspapers go after stories, and candidates are prime targets. If that story hits 6 months before an election or just before an election does not change the nature of the story. That there is a history of "October surprises" (as they are called) is no surprise, because the paper with the "scoop" is going to get the eyeballs.

The timing does make is suspect - the pathetic weakness of the 'case' makes it far more so. There is nothing here but accusation and even that is weak. No, this one stinks to high Heaven and only very committed 'fans' even buy the accusations.

As for these accusations coming out years before, even Hannity had this one right: a single woman putting herself out there on the strength of her claim alone and facing a powerful and beloved man is likely to find the whole thing too intimidating to speak - I have no problem seeing that as a very valid reality. The WaPo found multiple women, and convinced them to come out as a group - and I can see how that kind of solidarity would work - especially in the middle of an apparent cultural shift on how much we tolerate sexual harassment in the workplace. There have been a flood of such disclosures in the past couple of months.

yep, but that has been happening for a very long time now - so no, I don't grant that it only just became reasonable for women to come forward - we've had women doing so for decades.

As for the rest of your observation - we are already far afield of a "representative" government. The "loudest voices" in our society are not those with the worsdt accusations - they are the ones with the most money. IMO, we now have a government that is significantly "bought and paid for" by big business. That doesn't always just take the form of bribes - it also takes the form of paid advertising that the vast majority of Americans are too happy to lap up uncritically if it aligns with their existing political biases.

Accusations are a form of unpaid advertising.

I think you err in conflating the world of law with the world of politics. A politician needs to not only be on the right side of the law, they also need to be on the right side of the people. I can be perfectly legal and still have an odious reputation and repugnant practices and policies. I am anti-Moore, not because I think he is guilty of pedophilia (which I do not know to be true), but because he flagrantly places his relgiious views above the constitution that he, as an elected official, is sworn to protect and defend. I have no problem with someone saying "god before country." I DO have a problem with someone acting on that as a sworn, elected official, if their faith runs counter to the Constitution they have sworn to defend.

And you are making the mistake of conflating the accusations with political positions. Alabama isn't wrong to ignore or disregard accusations it believes to be false - and voting for Moore because they support the policies you disagree with is just representative government in action.

I think you may be getting your dislike of Moore's positions confused with what the response to the accusations should be. I know you know the difference but you keep acting like there isn't one where Alabama voters are concerned.

And yes, I'm ignoring the constitutional stuff - we'll fight that one out in another thread sometime!

[Teallaura]

I cannot argue with any of those observations. I may be guilty of "romancifying the past."

We all do it.

I do know I am tired and sick with the way our political climate has devolved. The greatest risk to our democracy, I believe, is the breakdown in civil discourse, and an uninformed electorate. The willingness of our current electorate to rally to the defense of ANY information from ANY source that defends their existing POV is dangerous in the extreme.

Agreed.