Let’s just say that some of the stuff Kennedy did (sleeping with White House interns, getting women drunk or high and then having sex with them, etc) would probably get a modem politician in trouble if it same out.
The fact the Republicans have lost all moral grounding doesn’t mean other people have to. “We should be pigs because Republicans are pigs” is a strange mindset.
I would be surprised if JFK did not grab butts of women who were not his girlfriend.
I wouldn’t be “surprised” either, but I wouldn’t consider that evidence of it having happened.
We’ll probably do what we usually do, with one group of the well-intending screaming at another group of the well-intended for being insufficiently well-intended. And another screaming at both of them for distracting attention from the Real Issue.
You mean, like, Benghazi? 
Ok, I’m maybe okay with giving Franken the benefit of the doubt, if he denies the butt grabbing–a couple anonymous sources over a decade, both in circumstances where maybe it could have been something that was misconstrued is no where near the same journalistic standards as the WaPo did on the Roy Moore story.
I could also see overlooking it if someone was a butt-grabber like, in their early 20s, 30 years ago, and they’ve repented.
But you’re saying that even if Franken got up and said 'Yes, sometimes I use a photo op as an chance to cop a feel, because it makes my dick twitch to feel a strange ass, and I’m only bringing this up because I finally got caught", you’d consider that to be something you’d be willing to give him a chance to “rehabilitate himself” from?
I certainly wouldn’t want to use “the ongoing antics of our president” as any kind of yardstick for measuring what is acceptable or not.
Ok, now we’ve moved on to the sentencing phase.
Well, the Dems need to be wary of zero tolerance policies, lest they become vulnerable to political ratfucks. Also, you don’t want to give the advantage to those who smear the victims, as Franken has not at least so far:
If Franken leaves the Senate and is replace by another Democrat, the country will still suffer a loss. Because Franken is a goo-goo, a good government type. For example, he is pushing hard for net neutrality, presumably abstaining from the $572 million spent since 2008 by telecoms to kill that concept. Cite: http://bgr.com/2017/07/12/net-neutrality-explained-internet-day-of-action-july-12/
Whether Franken feels he can remain a goo-goo or whether he would be inclined to raise significantly more money in order to counter attack ads during his re-election campaigns, is also salient. To be honest, I can’t see how he could win re-election with the crushing combination of visual photo and track record of groping allegations.
Another possibility is to have the ethics committee recommend a vote of censure by the full Senate, for groping. That would put all members on the record about how they feel about this behavior, which could prove useful on future occasions.
For now, I’m withholding judgment on sentencing; there are a lot of moving pieces and emerging evidence involved.
I’m actually still not in support of Franken retiring. IMO, the behavior is bad, but the kind of bad where voters should really make the decision.
This makes an important point. If caring about sexual assault only ever hurts those who care about sexual assault, you are firmly incentivizing not caring about sexual assault, and creating a very good utilitarian case for not caring about it. I mean, what does it tell us if Al Franken gets thrown out of office for this, but Trump stays and Roy Moore gets elected? Well, it shows that caring about sexual assault is fucking awful for the democratic party, and that pretending to care (while actually being as awful and nasty about it as possible) is great for the republican party. Is the marginal advantage of having one party that cares about sexual assault worth the significant disadvantage that holding that principle gives that party?
I’m hoping that’s not how this shakes out, obviously. Sexual assault is something we should care about. But, to put it bluntly, if Franken and Coyne get forced out, but Moore gets elected and Trump stays, it’s not clear what the actual advantages of caring about sexual assault are on a political level. It’s “doing the right thing”, sure, but in doing the right thing you kneecap your ability to, y’know, do the right thing. It’s like standing up for the humanity of non-offending pedophiles - a good idea, but if one party actually publicly espouses it, the other party is going to gain power as a result and it’s a total wash for the people we’re actually trying to help. Unless you can ensure that your party is pure as fresh snow - good luck with that.
I guess here’s one advantage of such an asymmetry: if the democrats do get a wave election at some point, the sheer number of right-wingers who could be purged through ethics investigations of sexual assault would be pretty dramatic.
So the message is give gropers a pass if they’re Democrats because winning elections is the important thing?
Well, the current higher-level message is apparently, “give gropers a pass only if they’re republicans; slam democrats as hard as possible”. There are quite often principles which are important, but which are better achieved by not speaking them out or by being hypocritical about them. Preventing and punishing sexual assault are important norms. But only one party in congress actually seems to give the slightest shit about it. You think republicans are going to push for better norms or regulations surrounding sexual assault? Democrats might. So if the norm right now is "gropers in power is bad for dems but good for republicans, it may be on net better to change that to “gropers in power is bad for nobody”.
Then again, that would also suck a lot for the victims. Ideally, we would get republicans to care about gropers. Ideally, Moore will lose in december, and then we can all just move on with a firm norm, “sexual assault is wrong”. I’m not going to hold my breath (a number of right-wing pundits came right out and said, “Better a child molester than a democrat”), but boy would it be nice.
All in all, and speaking in general, I suppose there is only one real solution. We have to let the voters decide. If they elected Franken, they can unelect him. If they elect Moore, they will have to live with him.
Well, the voters generally get to decide how repugnant a person they elect. So if accusations are raised about an incumbent, the voters get a clear say next election cycle.
If actions are so significant, perhaps public relations efforts might create sufficient pressure for an official to resign. In my opinion, Franken has not yet hit that point. Moreover, there is an issue if only decent persons give in to such pressure, while assholes cling on to their power.
The elected bodies can exercise their processes however they wish. If you disagree with the effectiveness of such processes, pressure your reps to change them. But you still have the right to express your voice no more than 6 years out.
Another possibility is prosecution for illegal acts, or recall elections.
But I am not yet comfortable ignoring the political significance of an individual politician resigning. We are in a battle for America’s future, and right now, the Right is winning big time through their unprincipled positions. By delaying Obama’s judicial appointments and now passing great numbers of young ideologues, the Right will have outsized effect on our childrens’ children. Reapportionment/redistricting is coming up in 2020. I wish I could say that Dems were more ethical than Repubs WRT gerrymandering, but bemoaning the current rules won’t stop losing the ongoing game. The current admin is having increased effect in being anti-science, anti-environment, and weakening our position internationally. Dems should assume principled stances, but ought not do so to the point of strategic disadvantage.
Obama was - by all measures - an upstanding man. But he was not nearly as effective as he could have been early in his first term, because he foolishly attempted to cooperate with the Repub minority. Then, the Repubs made it their primary goal to stonewall everything he proposed. And, despite his upstanding moral nature, the Right accused him of every manner of moral failing. What was his reward for character?
Meanwhile, W seems to get somewhat of a pass. His youth was full of frathouse drinking and drugging. He unnecessarily started wars which cost 10s (100s?) of thousands of lives, and billions (trillions?) of $.
Sorry ladies, I’d prefer some flatout inexcusable assgrabbery over that.
I acknowledge that the earth has shifted somewhat, and urge women who have been harrassed and abused to come forward BEFORE a politician is elected, rather than after.
Just so we’re all clear, Senator Al Franken is one of the 'assholes cling[ing] on to their power" and not a “decent person”, right?
People were upset when I asked IOKIADDI earlier, but that does seem to be the answer coming through loud and clear by the majority of posters here.
Reminds me of an old saying, he may be a SOB but he’s our SOB.
Dammit! Almost got away with another steaming mound of liberal hypocrisy, but Hurr and aldiboronti are too smart for us!
This is a good column. She says the GOP is now saying that elections now replace the courtroom to determine guilt. If you are elected that is all that matters
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article186176113.html
The GOP certainly isn’t alone in saying that: