Not sure I agree with this sentiment. Many people can lose their employment due to perceived missteps. A celebrity/TV-radio personality can lose jobs due to something entirely unrelated to their “on-the-job” performance. Medical professionals. Cops.
Are they allowed to rehabilitate? Pay their dues?
I consider that a completely different discussion than whether an elected official can be redeemed.
Elected offices are few. We don’t have to lower our standards to fill them. I’m fine with permanently excluding anyone who shows poor character or judgement. Call me an optimist.
For entertainers, they themselves are the product. They’re either saleable or not. It’s purely a business decision, and customers can vote with their wallets.
For other professions, people should have authority appropriate to what they can be trusted with. Abuse of their position means they should not be in that position. Remove their authority and let them earn it again like they did the first time.
Why does everyone assume he’d have to run for a Senate seat? He could run for the House in whichever district he currently calls home.
FWIW I think Dems can do better. But if he makes his case well enough to win a primary, then I’d certainly cheer for him to beat his GOP opponent.
We likely disagree. It is pretty unlikely that I would find enough candidates with whom I agreed wholeheartedly on EVERY issue. For me, the question is whether the plusses sufficiently outweigh the minuses. In this case, for me, they probably do. But given that enough people likely vehemently disagree, he is probably permanently tainted.
Depends entirely on your personal metric. Is a speeding ticket permanently disqualifying? A DUI? A misdemeanor conviction? Escalate until you reach your personal tipping point.
What is a “replacement-level senator”?
Very good point. Could always use more intelligent, well-spoken Dems in the house. Or maybe NY/NYC statewide/municipal office…
My personal opinion is that his past indiscretions were not so great as to be permanently disqualifying. I’m not sure how much of the electorate would agree with me.
I think we agree that there is a minimum standard of character necessary to hold an elected office. Where we draw the line will vary, and that’s why we have a democracy. Sexual abuse is way over the line for me.
Character is separate from policy issues, in principle, although Republicans seem to prefer people of a low character so that distinction is rather blurry anymore.
Oh, a mistake. Even a mistake repeated over and over again is forgivable.
I can see it: A Cuomo/Franken ticket in 2024 going up against Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene.
I should start preparing hibernation quarters now.
Honestly, if that were the choice, I would have no problem deciding how to vote.
I cannot imagine a 70-something-year-old Al Franken would be very happy being a freshman Representative in what is likely to be the House minority after this year. If there’s a less influential perch in the federal government, I can’t think of it.
Well, you certainly don’t mean that literally. Being a 35+ year employee of the federal government, I think even a minority freshman Rep is slightly more influential than I! 
All depends on the entirety of his personal situation, his goals, and his alternatives. A well-spoken minority Rep has a bigger pulpit than MNY other alternative occupations.
How does one relate a baseball statistic to the United States Senate?
Dems like Franken or Whoopi Goldberg getting cancelled is (sadly for them) the price the party must pay for being able to demand that GOPers step down for their own faux pas, which are typically much more severe in kind and in degree than Franken’s or Whoopi’s.
I feel bad for them, personally, and empathize with them and their defenders feeling aggrieved. This is neither fair nor equitable nor just, but it’s necessary so we don’t get bogged down in endless “cancel culture” debates–we still will, but Franken and Whoopi allow Dems to insist that they demand that all sexual abusers, Nazi sympathizers, etc. get punished quickly and sharply (not that Franken is a sexual abuser, IMO, or Whoopi a Nazi sympathizer.) Neither of them is starving, and neither the Senate nor the View lacks for competent replacements, so they have to take a hit for the greater good.
He was perfectly average within the Democratic caucus. He wasn’t a Bob Menendez who would be guaranteed to make the Senate a better place if he resigned, or a Jon Tester who would surely be replaced by someone much worse. He was fine (until maybe he wasn’t), and Tina Smith is fine, and everything is still fine. His absence is inconsequential for everyone not named Al Franken and the years-long grudge some people have about his resignation is bizarre.
I don’t know whether @Lord_Feldon was specifically alluding to a “replacement-level player” in baseball or not, but that’s how I interpreted it.
In baseball, and in politics, you might try to measure how good or how valuable a player/Senator is by comparing him to how some other person would be doing in that same position; and a replacement-level player is a hypothetical perfectly-competent-but-nothing-special standard of comparison.
In Denver, they re-elected a mayor that was caught sexually harassing a woman on his protection staff and blamed his love of his family for violating his own travel ban. By that standard, why shouldn’t Franken run again - his actions were a lot more tame.
Sure, I was being tongue-in-cheek. But I really can’t see how being the freshman Representative for Minnetonka or wherever would help him advance any goals he has. His pulpit as a former Senator and celebrity is already light years beyond anything afforded most freshmen members of Congress.
It would certainly be interesting though if he ran for Congress from his current residence in the Upper West Side. That’s Jerry Nadler’s district.
“We should excuse this guy, because that guy over there is worse,” is a terrible moral standard.
Some thought he was on track to be a candidate for President or VP. I don’t think Tina Smith is (yet).