Absent an agreement with his wife, most people would consider it “wrong” in a general sense for a married man to have sexual interactions with a young woman. (Since everyone involved was an adult, it would also fall under the category of “none of our business.”) In addition, the POTUS/Intern relationship is a bit problematic. Personally, I don’t think it’s the biggest sin ever committed, but I can see the point of view of people who think it was wrong, even if the intern initiated the relationship.
This just popped up on the AP:
That’s some fucked up kind of morality on display there, “Mr. Lewis”.
By entering into a sexual relationship in a workplace situation where he has all the power, including the ability to fire her, and she has none.
I think that’s a wrong choice regardless of how consensual it was on her part, because he’s in a position to use his power over her if a time comes when he wants the relationship to continue, and she wants out.
Is it the biggest deal in the world? No. As far as we know, there’s no time when Clinton tried to coerce her in any way, and that’s the main thing. But one should work to keep the possibility itself at a remove.
(AFAIAC, the Clintons’ marriage is between the two of them. If Clinton committed adultery, that’s nobody’s business but theirs.)
Marital infidelity
Power imbalance
Obviously, Democrats aren’t stupid enough to fight to keep a pedophile in the Senate. They are, perhaps, smart enough to insist that the process of expelling the pedophile be conducted with the seriousness and transparency demanded by the gravity of the occasion – investigations, hearings, the whole shebang.
If Moore wins, the Democrats will then have to help clean up the Republicans’ mess, because the mess simply must be cleaned up somehow and the Republicans proved incapable of doing it themselves. That doesn’t mean they don’t get to thoroughly rub the Republicans’ noses in it first.
I’m not sure if the Democrats in the Senate should necessarily cooperate with an expulsion, when the Republicans have a chance to try and make sure a child molester doesn’t get elected – by endorsing and campaigning for Jones. Would an expulsion go through if all Democrats abstain from an expulsion vote (I wouldn’t advocate that they vote to keep him)? I suggest this for a few reasons – firstly, to try and motivate the tiny chance that some Republicans campaign for Jones (they’d have to announce it now – say publicly that they won’t cooperate in any effort to expel a lawfully elected Senator Moore unless the Republicans actively try to campaign to defeat him now); and secondly, that having an untouchable nutcase like Moore in the Senate as a Republican actually probably helps the Democrats, at least as compared to Strange or whoever would come next.
Not that this is likely at all (nor am I sure that it’s even wise – just something to consider). Machiavellian politicking is typically beyond the Democratic party.
There’s no way that not voting to expel Moore, should it come up, can possibly be a good move for any Democrat.
I agree with both of you, but as someone who has dated within my career in all directions (up, sideways and down), I have a hard time assigning a whole lot of “wrong” to a consensual relationship between adults who know exactly what they are getting into. The potential for “wrong” is there, but that potential shouldn’t be enough to label every such relationship “wrong” from the beginning, IMO.
Anyway, the sentence I quoted just seemed to stand out to me, because I was pretty sure that what was described wasn’t what actually happened, and as such it seems to blunt a lot of the arguments being put forth in the article. The author should have focused on the damage that President Clinton did to Miss Lewinsky’s reputation by denying the truth of her statements; there’s even a blurb on her Wiki page:
Because it wasn’t the relationship itself that was the problem, and it wasn’t the direct power imbalance that was the problem, either. It was the fact that when the story came out, Bill Clinton lied and besmirched her character… but that fact really has nothing to do with her having a government job, IMO. Any woman who had an affair with the POTUS was going to find herself with an uphill climb when it came to establishing credibility (er… for most PsOTUS, that is; present day is different, I think).
So I guess that was my roundabout way of calling out the article for wanting the right thing and having the right idea but using an incorrect data point to get there.
And yes, JohnT, it matters because the parallels the article is trying to draw don’t really exist, except in the broadest possible terms. The article is re-writing history, just as Miss Lewinsky decries Mr. Clinton for doing, and so uses a bad argument in a good cause, which ultimately can hurt more than help by giving weight to opponent’s cries of foul play or “fake news; nothing to see here”.
Plus it’s just such an obvious mistake; I couldn’t unsee it.
But he lied to the American people! Thank God, that era of shameless public mendacity is past.
Plus, if Moore wins, and is expelled, wouldn’t they have to just have another election, in which case Moore would win again. Not sure expelling him cleans up the mess.
If the good people of Alabama elect Moore in the full knowledge of who and what he is, I say they deserve him.
But we *all *get him, deservedly or not. We can’t ignore that or keep on the sideline munching popcorn and pointing.
Monica Lewinsky is not remotely close to being the worst of Bill Clinton’s sexual predations. She’s the one we all remember, because he successfully smushed the reputations of the women he’d assaulted before he was President.
That’s right, the reason there’s no evidence or un-self-rebutted testimony of his assaults is that he got rid of it all! The dastard!
Or maybe it didn’t really happen quite that way.
And he was going to do the same to her. There was 24 hours or so between when the story broke and when it was revealed that the stained dress existed. It that time they were labeling her as a nut job stalker.
I don’t think I agree with an expulsion for non-political acts before the person is a Senator. I don’t think that’s a road anyone wants to drive down.
Yes, we can. Why is it, do you suppose, that McConnell didn’t want Moore in the first place? He’s a batshit crazy uncontrollable loose cannon, that’s why.
Moore isn’t going to vote in lockstep with McConnell. He’s going to continually embarrass and tarnish the McConnell Republican brand. He’s going to gum up their legislative agenda with attempts to sponsor bills that legislate religion and generally be a royal pain in McConnell’s ass. He’ll be another maverick (comes complete with cowboy hat!), except with the added feature of pedophilia. He’s going to foil McConnell’s legislative plans as sure as any Democrat. He will be at the forefront of what voters are thinking about when they head to the mid-terms.
For Dems, it really doesn’t matter how it goes, unless McConnell/Trump are somehow able to slide another Republican into Moore’s slot – which they should fight tooth and nail. I’m sure Sessions is being pressured like mad, but I’ll bet Alabamians won’t have it even if Sessions were to agree. I imagine Sessions knows this better than anyone, which is why he’s staying put despite having a really shitty job at this point.
The best chance Dems have to put Jones into the seat is if Jones is running against Moore.
And realistically, what can Dems do about it, anyway? Their first chance at taking back any real power is the mid-terms. If McConnell calls for a vote for expulsion in advance of the election, I hope Dems tell him to pound sand for calling for such a vote prematurely and abstain.
Pass the popcorn, please. 
In general I agree, but I think the Moore case is that he is denying the events. If they are proven true to some level of evidence (preponderance? beyond reasonable doubt?), then you can make a fairly good argument that he was elected under false premises.
If he runs in the election to replace himself and gets elected again, then I think the Senate might have to accept him.
By “we all” I meant “we all”. *All *Americans, Republicans included. By discussing them as the enemy who must be overcome instead of fellow citizens who must be persuaded, you fall into the same trap they already have. If your point was that a Senator Roy Moore and all of his embarrassments would finally be the lance for the boil and then the infection would be cured, I would support your long-term intent, if not your expectations.
Yeah, Moore is about the worst thing that can happen to the GOP PR-wise since Trump.
If McConnell calls for an expulsion, I’d want the Democrats to abstain unless the vote was going to be unanimous.
Let every single Republican line up and publicly repudiate him, or deal with the new face of your party.