# Now, Al Franken **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 16, 2017, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770 "2017-11-16T15:42:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 37
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/721 "2017-11-20T12:08:07Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > It never ceases to amaze me, what conservatives want to own. I cannot be bought! Rented, sure, twenty bucks is twenty bucks… ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/722 "2017-11-20T12:30:38Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > A fine sounding sentiment, but I don’t see how it would be ‘enforced’ in the real world. For example while the voters of non-Alabama will in fact have no direct say on whether Moore is elected, they do have IMO a clear right to tell _their_ Senators they don’t want him seated if he is elected. Senators have some duty to constituents besides doing whatever they please while in office then just appearing back at the ballot box in 6 yrs to be evaluated. Besides which many of them might simply feel it’s not right (or in their interest, anyway) to have Moore seated, and that’s what are taking back to _their_ voters when their term is up. You make a good argument, and to your point(s), I think that the decision on what to do with Roy Moore, whether to seat the sonofab#tch (if, God forbid, he gets elected), will probably hinge on the damage they perceive to the party as a whole. The Senate GOP already had plenty of reasons not to like Roy Moore, which is why they didn’t endorse his candidacy and spent a pile of money against it. > [@Corry\_El](#): > > Also your final paragraph implies to me a populist/left view of the country’s problems. Some things you mentioned are objectively problems, others are debatable, especially as to relative ranking. And once we got into remedies, forget it. The country is divided in large degree because people disagree on important issues, not mainly _because_ of disagreements like whether Franken can be compared to Moore. What I was trying to point out is that the right has successfully transformed much of our political debate and discourse into a culture war, much of which revolves around sexual mores. Republicans make it a practice to wage campaigns, win elections, and make policies by pretending to be sexual prudes when in reality, behind closed doors, they behave perversely. There’s a false equivalency in comparing someone like Al Franken to Roy Moore, and generally, a false equivalency in comparing Democrats and progressives to Republicans and conservatives when it comes to sexual harassment and illicit sexual behavior. And yet here Democrats are, forced into a debate over what to do with Al Franken and how to treat Bill Clinton’s legacy, presumably required to display disgust with the former and regret over the latter. Unfortunately, the result is that the dumb voters in this country will continue to believe that ‘both sides do it’ and it doesn’t matter whom we vote for. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/723 "2017-11-20T12:48:01Z")
My political strategy argument for Franken resigning: It could make, with the right messaging, the Democratic party going forward the “absolutely NO SEXUAL ASSAULT, not even a little bit” party, and the Republican party the “some sexual assault is okay” party. The Democrats could state openly that they have been on the wrong side on this issue in the past, and that they (we) will no longer be on the wrong side, and will have absolutely no tolerance for groping, sexual harassment, sexual assault, etc. – not even a little bit of groping or harassment is okay. And then the distinction will be quite clear – one party denounces and boots any groper or harasser or assaulter, and the other party tolerates them (e.g. Moore) or even rallies around them (e.g. Trump). Contrary to many popular opinions, there are some non-zero number of moderate and conservative voters who might actually care about this. This messaging could reach those voters. It’s also the right thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/724 "2017-11-20T13:22:11Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > … > > I just don’t see Franken’s crimes as resignation-worthy, and if Democrats want to make it so it’ll come back to bite them. Because Republicans certainly won’t be following suit, and Democrats will look even worse if they let someone more beloved or more important than Franken slide. Once again, I find myself saying “me too” to a thoughtful **adaher** post. First, I do not see these accusations as coming close to warranting resignation - if they had involved any politician of any party. Second, I hope Dems have learned that “taking the high road” will NOT garner any reciprocity from Repubs - or any lasting benefit from the Dem base. Let him face whatever public criticism or Senatorial sanction follows. I wager that with the way things are going and the public’s fleeting attention, this will fade quickly. Would be horrible to lose a Senator as intelligent, thoughtful, and on the right side of so many issues as Franken, over a remote transgression such as this. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/725 "2017-11-20T13:24:54Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > My political strategy argument for Franken resigning: > > It could make, with the right messaging, the Democratic party going forward the “absolutely NO SEXUAL ASSAULT, not even a little bit” party, and the Republican party the “some sexual assault is okay” party. > … > It’s also the right thing to do. I have some real problems with this, and with every other zero tolerance policy in existence. A measured response to a misbehavior that occurs on a spectrum of severity is both reasonable and the right thing to do. Factors to consider include: -The severity of the misbehavior. -Whether there’s a pattern of misbehavior. -How recent is the misbehavior, especially whether it’s occurring while the miscreant is in office. -Whether the miscreant recognizes the misbehavior and is taking steps to change. It may be that when everything is considered, Franken needs to resign. It may not be. Zero tolerance is not a good idea here or nearly anywhere else. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/726 "2017-11-20T13:39:47Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I have some real problems with this, and with every other zero tolerance policy in existence. A measured response to a misbehavior that occurs on a spectrum of severity is both reasonable and the right thing to do. Factors to consider include: > > -The severity of the misbehavior. > -Whether there’s a pattern of misbehavior. > -How recent is the misbehavior, especially whether it’s occurring while the miscreant is in office. > -Whether the miscreant recognizes the misbehavior and is taking steps to change. > > It may be that when everything is considered, Franken needs to resign. It may not be. Zero tolerance is not a good idea here or nearly anywhere else. Do you really have a problem with every other zero tolerance policy? What about child molestation? Isn’t it reasonable that the Democratic party (or any party) have a line in the sand that molesting children means one shouldn’t be a Senator (or any other political office)? Or open and unrepentant white supremacism? Or advocacy for genocide? If these lines in the sand, which I think are reasonably described as zero tolerance policies, are okay, then why isn’t it okay to decide that, say, violation of the consent of someone else with regards to intimate contact/behavior as an adult means one doesn’t get to represent the party in the Senate? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/727 "2017-11-20T13:56:45Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Do you really have a problem with every other zero tolerance policy? I should be clear that “zero tolerance policies” usually refer to policies that treat everything on a spectrum of severity as equal, or at least deserving of very harsh penalties. > [@](#): > > Or open and unrepentant white supremacism? Or advocacy for genocide? Clinton’s “super-predator” comments were white supremacism, but I don’t advocate applying zero-tolerance to those. People have lauded demographics that will result in white voters becoming a minority; I don’t want to apply zero tolerance to those. Yeah, they’re not exactly what you’re talking about, but that’s the point: they’re lesser, milder versions of what you’re talking about, versions that are still not okay, but that don’t deserve an equal penalty. > [@](#): > > If these lines in the sand, which I think are reasonably described as zero tolerance policies, are okay, then why isn’t it okay to decide that, say, violation of the consent of someone else with regards to intimate contact/behavior as an adult means one doesn’t get to represent the party in the Senate? Because it’s better to judge things according to criteria such as what I laid out above. A senator who uses his office to pressure pages into sexual activity is doing something much worse than a senator who made an ugly sexual joke before he entered office. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/728 "2017-11-20T14:05:11Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > Franken is no dummy. He knows that there is little room for maneuver in his current situation. Attempting to defend the joke won’t help him. Condemning it and showing empathy for Ms Tweeden instead was the smart move. That doesn’t mean the joke is indefensible. So you’re saying Senator Franken is smart enough not to try to defend this joke. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/729 "2017-11-20T14:20:20Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > There does need to be a lot of thinking about this though. What if it’s October 2024 and the Democratic candidate turns out to have grabbed a staffer’s ass one time? Are you all voting Republican? Of course there’s a spectrum! Obviously if you find out your candidate likes 14-year old girls or is constantly grabbing everyone’s ass then he should be nowhere near the White House. As I keep pointing out in the elections thread, people don’t have to vote D or R, they can stay home, vote for a third party, vote but not for president, or write in a protest candidate. Democrats should have learned this in the last election, when the combined suite of ‘none of the above’ options had about as many votes as either major party candidate. The tactic of ‘what are you going to do, vote Republican?’ didn’t work for Hillary and isn’t likely to work well for Democrats in the future. And no, I wouldn’t vote for an adult who doesn’t understand that grabbing staffer’s asses is just something you don’t do. If the Democrats really can’t find a candidate who can refrain from feeling up his or her staff, then the party is in much worse shape than I thought. It’s REALLY not that hard to only grab the asses of people that consent to ass-grabbing, I had that figured out before I got to high school, and the fact that people are pre-defending a hypothetical Democratic groper candidate years in advance is really unsettling. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/730 "2017-11-20T14:24:16Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Do you really have a problem with every other zero tolerance policy? What about child molestation? Isn’t it reasonable that the Democratic party (or any party) have a line in the sand that molesting children means one shouldn’t be a Senator (or any other political office)? Or open and unrepentant white supremacism? Or advocacy for genocide? First, I’d need to see your definition of child molestation. Second, I consider isolated instances of inappropriate words/actions towards women less serious than abusing minors, or advocating genocide. Advocating racism is an interesting one. While I abhor it, I respect free speech, and a community’s right to elect offensive candidates if they wish. Many an elected official has ACTED in ways seeming to enable racism. I’m not sure being honest about it ought to be a bar. Third, I’ve never encountered a zero tolerance policy I supported. They may exist, but I can’t think of one. There are always those case/situation-specific facts. Those pesky shades of grey. One reason so few offenses are assigned strict liability. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/731 "2017-11-20T14:27:32Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > My political strategy argument for Franken resigning: > > It could make, with the right messaging, the Democratic party going forward the “absolutely NO SEXUAL ASSAULT, not even a little bit” party, and the Republican party the “some sexual assault is okay” party. The Democrats could state openly that they have been on the wrong side on this issue in the past, and that they (we) will no longer be on the wrong side, and will have absolutely no tolerance for groping, sexual harassment, sexual assault, etc. – not even a little bit of groping or harassment is okay. And then the distinction will be quite clear – one party denounces and boots any groper or harasser or assaulter, and the other party tolerates them (e.g. Moore) or even rallies around them (e.g. Trump). > > Contrary to many popular opinions, there are some non-zero number of moderate and conservative voters who might actually care about this. This messaging could reach those voters. > > It’s also the right thing to do. Disagree. Firstly, there is no proven or admitted sexual assault. We have proof only of sexual harassment, everything else is under dispute. If you want Democratic Senators to resign the instant someone \*accuses \*them of sexual assault … well, I have a nightmare scenario for you. _Stage whisper_ The GOP might abuse that policy for electoral advantage. Fine, you say. Sexual harassment is bad enough! Well, okay, but is firing and/or resignation for first-offense sexual harassment really a reasonable policy? Franken’s actions don’t suggest some kind of serial predator, it suggests an idiot who went along with the prevailing culture that devalues women’s consent. If we want to change that culture, we have to bring incidents out into the open, and then educate the offenders. If we implement a blinkered-stupid zero tolerance policy, it gives us no opportunity for education, and is going to hamper reporting, and prosecution - because the perpetrators will admit fault even less when they know if means that they can never hold a job again, and the victims may be more reluctant to come forward as well - “He was staring down my shirt, but I don’t want to get a man fired…” Fine, you say. Apply this only to the Senate. You still have the same consequences, just to a smaller group. And again, if our standard is “If you admit to harassing someone, you’re out of the Senate” then no one will ever admit to harassing anyone. Which means every accusation has to go to the ethics committee. And then it becomes partisan in appearance, and likely in reality. No, I think the Senate Democrats are taking the morally and strategically correct path, so far. 1.) Don’t cover it up. Don’t smear the victim. 2.) Denounce it forcefully, investigate the incident. 3.) Use the incident to launch a broader discussion of harassment in general, and harassment in Congress in particular. Step 4 is to actually implement some changes to combat harassment. I admit the calculus would be different for me if we had proof he groped her; or if he had been a sitting Senator at the time; or if he’d tried to compound the harm to her by trying to discredit her. But what he did sounds like the shit that thousand of women have to deal with on a daily basis - basically, it’s harassment 101. So the opportunity to educate the public on the issue is just too good to ruin by trying to go all zero-tolerance. This is the kind of harassment where intervention and education is appropriate, not a public stoning. I mean, ask your local high school how well their zero-tolerance drug policy is going. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/732 "2017-11-20T14:30:52Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > That’s an [unreasonable assumption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation). Yes, it’s wikipedia. Feel free to disparage it. If we are to treat all “credible” (as determined by whom) accusations as true, what then is the point of courts and juries and judges? Or are they only always credible if they can’t be adjudicated? As Jimmy Chitwood subsequently stated (with a bit of invective for added color) I wasn’t expressing my personal opinion in that post, only what “many people” believe. These people accept in principle that there is some very small percentage of false accusations. But as a practical matter, they dismiss this likelihood as insignificant. And in any given instance they will believe the accusation. As it happens, an example of this came up just this weekend. Someone associated with Lena Dunham was accused of rape, and Lena - a big “believe all women” advocate - announced that based on her personal knowledge of the situation she believed this was among the “3%” of false accusations. She came in for enormous criticism over this, and as a result had to repudiate and apologize for her original statement. [Cite](http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/19/entertainment/lena-dunham-apology/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![Bijou\_Drains](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bijou_drains/32/2814_2.png) [@Bijou\_Drains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bijou_Drains)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/733 "2017-11-20T14:43:21Z")
speaking of butt grabbing, here is accuser #2 for Franken [http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/politics/al-franken-inappropriate-touch-2010/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/politics/al-franken-inappropriate-touch-2010/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/734 "2017-11-20T14:43:39Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I should be clear that “zero tolerance policies” usually refer to policies that treat everything on a spectrum of severity as equal, or at least deserving of very harsh penalties. Okay, fair enough. That isn’t exactly what I’m describing. > [@](#): > > Clinton’s “super-predator” comments were white supremacism, but I don’t advocate applying zero-tolerance to those. People have lauded demographics that will result in white voters becoming a minority; I don’t want to apply zero tolerance to those. I think Clinton apologized for that remark. I’m not sure what you mean by the second. > [@](#): > > Yeah, they’re not exactly what you’re talking about, but that’s the point: they’re lesser, milder versions of what you’re talking about, versions that are still not okay, but that don’t deserve an equal penalty. I agree they don’t deserve an equal penalty, but that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that it’s reasonable to have a line for certain types of behavior when it comes to whether one should be supported by a party for Senator – and IMO, violating consent as an adult should cross that line. Moore and Trump deserve much harsher penalties than simply not being in office; all I’m saying about Franken is that he’s below my standard (and, I’m arguing, what the party’s standard should be) for Senator to remain in office. > [@](#): > > Because it’s better to judge things according to criteria such as what I laid out above. A senator who uses his office to pressure pages into sexual activity is doing something much worse than a senator who made an ugly sexual joke before he entered office. Right. Franken did a lot more than make an ugly sexual joke, of course. Not getting to be Senator is a pretty damn mild penalty in the scheme of things. I’m not saying he and Moore deserve the same thing. Moore deserves a lot worse. I think what I’m arguing doesn’t skip nuance or require black-and-white thinking. One punishment for Franken – he should resign. Another for Moore and Trump – they should be prosecuted and not serve in any public office. If they’re past the statute of limitations, Moore and Trump (and similar felony-level abusers) should be shunned from polite society. Not treated the same, and shades of grey and all. So maybe zero-tolerance isn’t the right term. But whatever it is, Franken should resign, IMO, and the party shouldn’t tolerate even a little bit of violation of consent, whether it’s utilizing someone’s unconscious body as a prop in a joke, forcing a kiss, purposefully barging into beauty pageant changing rooms, groping, or worse. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/735 "2017-11-20T14:44:37Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Perhaps an ethical conduct hearing for congress members who are accused of sexual predation or harassment would be in order to determine if there are grounds for censure or dismissal. Accuser credibility could be addressed by asking them to testify under oath in front of a bipartisan congressional panel that includes men and women congress members. That’s sounds doable. If you trace back the discussion about a “bright line”, the original context was whether Franken should have to resign, so I assumed your bright line advocacy was about that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/736 "2017-11-20T14:45:35Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > My political strategy argument for Franken resigning: > > It could make, with the right messaging, the Democratic party going forward the “absolutely NO SEXUAL ASSAULT, not even a little bit” party, and the Republican party the “some sexual assault is okay” party. The Democrats could state openly that they have been on the wrong side on this issue in the past, and that they (we) will no longer be on the wrong side, and will have absolutely no tolerance for groping, sexual harassment, sexual assault, etc. – not even a little bit of groping or harassment is okay. And then the distinction will be quite clear – one party denounces and boots any groper or harasser or assaulter, and the other party tolerates them (e.g. Moore) or even rallies around them (e.g. Trump). > > Contrary to many popular opinions, there are some non-zero number of moderate and conservative voters who might actually care about this. This messaging could reach those voters. > > It’s also the right thing to do. So, you would have booted Robert Byrd out of office? You gonna side with every right winger who brings that up on this MB going forward? I find the idea that certain offenses warrant a Scarlet Letter to be not only overly simplistic, but not something I would find admirable in an organization. In a political party it makes them look weak and ineffectual. So afraid of controversy that they run and hide from it. This is, in fact, acting in a way that many on the right mistakenly characterize the Democrats as being. Keep in mind that “2” is a non-zero number. However, if you really think “it’s the right thing to do”, then that’s a different story. I disagree, but we all have our opinions. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/737 "2017-11-20T14:54:34Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > What I was trying to point out is that the right has successfully transformed much of our political debate and discourse into a culture war, much of which revolves around sexual mores. Republicans make it a practice to wage campaigns, win elections, and make policies by pretending to be sexual prudes when in reality, behind closed doors, they behave perversely. There’s a false equivalency in comparing someone like Al Franken to Roy Moore, and generally, a false equivalency in comparing Democrats and progressives to Republicans and conservatives when it comes to sexual harassment and illicit sexual behavior. And yet here Democrats are, forced into a debate over what to do with Al Franken and how to treat Bill Clinton’s legacy, presumably required to display disgust with the former and regret over the latter. It would be interesting to see some stats comparing “sexual harassment and illicit sexual behavior” between the parties. But that aside, I find the juxtaposition of your second and third sentences interesting. Because your second quoted sentence is a big rallying cry of Democrats on this board and elsewhere. Republicans guilty of sexual transgressions are a lot worse than Democrats doing the same thing, because after all the Republicans purport to be the party of “family values”. By that logic you would think that members of the party which is more into advocating for women on the sexual harassment front would be more guilty when falling short of that standard. But you seem to be then stating the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/738 "2017-11-20T14:54:36Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > So, you would have booted Robert Byrd out of office? You gonna side with every right winger who brings that up on this MB going forward? > > I find the idea that certain offenses warrant a Scarlet Letter to be not only overly simplistic, but not something I would find admirable in an organization. In a political party it makes them look weak and ineffectual. So afraid of controversy that they run and hide from it. This is, in fact, acting in a way that many on the right mistakenly characterize the Democrats as being. Keep in mind that “2” is a non-zero number. > > However, if you really think “it’s the right thing to do”, then that’s a different story. I disagree, but we all have our opinions. If Byrd hadn’t repented sincerely (and by my understanding he did, repeatedly), certainly. Note how I’m treating racism differently - unrepentant racism should not be tolerated, but repenting and apologizing for racism should be celebrated. I think the standard should be different for sins on the spectrum of knowingly violating sexual or intimate consent. But yes, this is ultimately about morality, and I think organizations, especially public /political should not tolerate such behavior on a moral basis. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/739 "2017-11-20T15:00:55Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > My political strategy argument for Franken resigning: > > It could make, with the right messaging, the Democratic party going forward the “absolutely NO SEXUAL ASSAULT, not even a little bit” party, and the Republican party the “some sexual assault is okay” party. The Democrats could state openly that they have been on the wrong side on this issue in the past, and that they (we) will no longer be on the wrong side, and will have absolutely no tolerance for groping, sexual harassment, sexual assault, etc. – not even a little bit of groping or harassment is okay. And then the distinction will be quite clear – one party denounces and boots any groper or harasser or assaulter, and the other party tolerates them (e.g. Moore) or even rallies around them (e.g. Trump). > > Contrary to many popular opinions, there are some non-zero number of moderate and conservative voters who might actually care about this. This messaging could reach those voters. Might come off as a bit less than completely principled, when you adopt a strict new stance at the exact time when it seems to benefit you politically, having had a completely different stance over the course of recent decades when the politics worked the other way. Especially when your main selling point in trying to convince party members to get on board is pointing to the political advantages of doing so. Many voters are stupid so you might have some limited success, but in this case you’d be aiming at the really really stupid ones, which is a smaller target audience. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/740 "2017-11-20T15:03:31Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Might come off as a bit less than completely principled, when you adopt a strict new stance at the exact time when it seems to benefit you politically, having had a completely different stance over the course of recent decades when the politics worked the other way. > > Especially when your main selling point in trying to convince party members to get on board is pointing to the political advantages of doing so. > > Many voters are stupid so you might have some limited success, but in this case you’d be aiming at the really really stupid ones, which is a smaller target audience. So you’re saying that when making an argument that was explicitly labeled as a “political strategy argument”, it was unprincipled of me to discuss the political advantages? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770.md?page=36) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770.md?page=38)