Actually from what I remember about that debacle, the memory of Franken helped Kavanaugh, both in getting the middle of the road types to be more skeptical of the allegations and getting the Republican base to rally around him in a “they may have been stupid enough to jettison their best over dubious allegations, but w aren’t”.
Plus then-Judge Kavanaugh got a hell of lot more due process than Franken ever did.
As its is, I disagree with your analysis elsewhere. Its pretty clear then and in retrospect, Franken resignation had little to do with the merits of the claim and more to do with the fact that he had lost his parties support.
And the multiple Senator’s mea culpas quoted in the article have jackshit to do with whether they thought the claims had merit, only since they have learnt that the episode made the Democratic party faithful and donors unhappy. Except Gillibrand, who cannot escape it anyway.
We disagree. I feel you’ve got the chain of causation wrong; I feel Franken lost his party’s support because they realized that the merits of the claim were strong. If Schumer and others had thought Franken could credibly claim to be innocent, they would have supported him.
Her problem with due process is that in the case of a Republican controlled Senate, it would be a months long process and during that time the GOP would use Franken as a cudgel against the Democrats and in fact due process is a meaningless term in this situation. This point is in the article you quoted. She also makes the point that at least half of Franken’s accusers are Democrats.
New article in Vox challenges (rightly, IMO) the assertion that Franken was lumped in and treated the same as Weinstein or Cosby. He wasn’t – #MeToo advocates recognize that different misbehavior warrants different consequences; Franken resigned from his high office job, but hasn’t been prosecuted, and that’s appropriate. He could even return to office as a #MeToo ally, with a genuine demonstration of contrition and understanding, IMO. I don’t think he’s done that yet, though.
Yes, Schumer had no authority to force a resignation, but I’m suggesting the things he did have power to do may have been enough of a reason for Franken to throw in the towel. By no means am I convinced this is what happened. You spoke earlier about Franken’s “innocence”. I believe it is possible that Franken believes he is, and actually might be, innoncent, in the sense that he is truly a “hugger”, and none of the things he has been accused of were meant to be sexual in nature. Again, I surely don’t know this to be the case, but I don’t think his resignation is particularly telling either way.
But if, as is now being reported, some of those senators are now saying they regret pushing Franken to resign, and feel it was a mistake to do so, does that mean they do now think he could credibly claim to be innocent?
Point taken about this, her second reference, to due process. My objection to her first use, still stands, in that is not delusional to believe due process could have cleared him if it were given. (“…he would have somehow managed to prove this”). Why is this not possible?
Irrelevant.
One of the keys to Marcotte’s article is to make Franken’s supporters look like fools, therefore what they say can be discounted. She starts off making a claim about these supporters, which I quoted. Yet she doesn’t name a single person whom she knows feels this way. Evidently, she doesn’t know any of their actual names.
She explains why in the next paragraph. She introduces the concept in the part you quote and then explains why it wasn’t a good idea in the next part. It is how you write an essay, you don’t refute a point until you explain what that point is.
The Democratic party has begun, finally, to take claims of harassment and assault seriously. That’s the right thing to do, and results in some resignations. The Republican party should do this too, but that they aren’t isn’t a reason for the Democrats to not do the right thing.
Franken’s behavior wasn’t nearly as bad as that of Kavanaugh or Trump, and they remain in office. By that standard, one can argue that Franken should have remained in office, too. But one can also argue that we should hold ourselves to high standards even (or especially) when our opponents are not.
I agree with the last point – we need to hold ourselves to high standards. Especially on sexual harassment and assault. It’s too important, and our society needs to change – I see compromising on this as akin to compromising on white supremacism or child molestation.
Investigation is fine with me. I think Franken did the right thing, both for the party and for the country, by resigning, though. But that doesn’t preclude investigation, by Franken or anyone else.
That should be: “Why is it only Democrats that have to resign?” (Not sure what’s with the typos I’ve been making lately…)
It’s great that Democrats have begun taking these claims seriously. But if the Democrats keep going with the circular firing squad approach that they have been taking lately, they are not going to have any qualified candidates left – and you will end up with nothing but Republicans in office, which ironically will include those credibly accused of harassment and assault.
This approach reminds me of those who voted for the Green party candidate in the 2000 presidential election (Ralph Nader) and in the 2016 election (Jill Stein), thereby resulting in a spoiler effect that threw the election to the Republican candidate – a party that is antithetical to the purported aims of the Green party.
The fact is that the Republicans are not going to be shamed into doing the “right thing” with respect to harassment and assault claims. The election of Trump and the confirmation of Kavanaugh have demonstrated that convincingly.
I see no reason to believe this is likely to be so. Getting rid of all harassers and assaulters will leave plenty of qualified Democrats.
There’s no point in trying to shame Republicans, but I want to beat them. I also want a party that is trying to do the right thing on sexual assault and harassment. I’d have trouble voting for a party that was not doing the right thing here, as would many others, I believe.
What happened to Franken was voluntary on his part: Others may have encouraged him to resign, but it was him and him alone who actually made the decision to do so. As the person who knows the most about what actually happened, he did not need any investigation to make that decision.
If he had not chosen to resign, then yes, absolutely an investigation would have been in order.
The first paragraph is devoted solely to ridiculing defenders of Franken. Marcotte’s implication in this paragraph is that there was no way that Franken could have been cleared of ethics violations by a Senate hearing. What a bunch of morons those defenders are. This has nothing to do with how long an actual investigation would take. That is a separate issue, which I happend to agree with, as to why the actual due process that Franken wanted would never have been allowed to go forward by Schumer. It has nothing to do with her efforts to discredit defenders of Franken right from the start, by making accusations she does not support.
…many defenders of Franken are deserving of ridicule.
Nope. Marcotte is stating in that paragraph that many Franken defenders believe that there has been a “frame-up”, and that “due process” would have proven there was a frame-up.
Almost all of the defenses of Franken are arguably moronic.
You are completely missing the entire context of Marcotte’s rebuttal. Mayer’s article in the New Yorker is appalling partisan journalism of the worst kind. Almost the entire article was a surgical dissection of Tweeden’s case made entirely through the lens of Franken supporters: none of that information was new, everything that was presented had been discussed in this very thread a couple of years ago. The other alleged victims were paid lip service in the article, barely getting a couple of sentences each, and every allegation from the alleged victims in that article were followed up with rebuttals like this:
Thats a strawman argument. She uses Silverman to directly discredit an accuser by attacking a strawman.
Thats hack journalism. Its appalling journalism, its simply bad journalism and it deserves to be called out.
