This.
And I would like to note, if he wants the job back, all he has to do is run for it. If the people of MN want to give it to him, they can do so.
But whining about how he was railroaded and if he had it to do all over again he would do something different, yadda yadda yadda, isn’t doing him any good. He resigned, so he should completely own his decision.
I think some of them may regret that Franken resigned when Republican politicians who have committed far more serious crimes are still in office. They may be feeling they got played for chumps and are now thinking “Why can’t we live with the same lack of accountability that the Republicans have?”
But I still feel that the Democrats made the right choice even if the Republicans didn’t follow their example. Now it’s up to the voters to show why making the right choices is a good idea; by voting against the people who made the wrong choice.
I’m not iiandyiiii but I’ll rebut this anyway.
I do not feel that we should accept every accusation as being true. But we should also not deny every accusation.
What we should do is apply our reason to accusations. We should look at the patterns of the accusations and the responses to those accusations. And then we can decide for ourselves if they seem believable or not.
Looking at Franken’s situation in that light, I find the accusations against him to be generally believable.
Al Franken apparently also considered them credible.
I never said that no defenders of Franken are deserving of ridicule. I said Marcotte didn’t bother to name any of them to illustrate her point. I’m simply saying that if you make a statement, back it up with something. Again: hack work. Marcotte pulls this shit all the time.
Yeah, I’ll concede that is the general idea of her statement, but again, given that she hasn’t named any of those defenders, the statement itself is pointless. It proves nothing.
Come on. You can’t know if I’m missing the entire context of Marcotte’s rebuttal, because I’ve only spoken about the opening paragraph. Stick to what I say! And in fact, I have not missed the entire context. I too noticed that Mayer did not discuss the other accusers much, and she should have gone into more detail there. The Silverman quote is indeed ridiculous, as are other things. For instance, what the hell swinging your arms like an ape and chewing with your mouth open has to do with Franken’s exoneration, I have no clue. I could go on. These are some of the “decent points” that I said Marcotte made up thread.
I forgot to mention that Marcotte’s very first link in the article is about “single most embarrassing group of allegedly progressive people in the Democratic coalition”, that she herself wrote. Seems like a perfect thing to link to, in which finally delusional Franken defenders will be named, and she can back up her claims.
Oh, we get this:
But again, no names. :rolleyes: She should give us some, and then let us judge what she is saying.
Yep, hack work.
…she doesn’t have too. Almost every single example defending Franken fit the criteria. There are several examples in this very thread.
So this is a “body of work” complaint? You should have stated your biases upfront.
It isn’t the “general idea” of her statement. It is literally her statement. It wasn’t pointless. It was the set-up for the rest of the article. As “set-up” it didn’t have to “prove anything.”
That you are only focusing on the opening paragraph demonstrates you are missing the entire context of the rebuttal.
I actually did “stick to what you said.” I quoted what you said. I addressed what you said.
You should go on. The Meyer article is appalling. The Marcotte article is worthy of a pulitzer in comparison. The Meyer article really is that bad. You’ve devoted more time and energy complaining about a single paragraph in the Marcotte article and only said something about the Meyer article when I called you on it.
We can pretend the Marcotte article doesn’t exist if you like. You characterized Marcotte as a hack and her work as hack work. How do you characterize the article, written by Meyer, that quotes the Senators that changed their mind but doesn’t quote the Senators that didn’t, that devotes almost its entire length to repeating the allegations on Tweeden from two years ago but ignores the rebuttals that were made two years ago, that paid lip service to the other allegations and dismissed those other allegations with a wave of a hand…you would have to characterize that article as a hack job as well, wouldn’t you?
You keep on acting like this is some big deal, as if we don’t all know exactly who she is talking about. As if we can’t simply type ‘al franken due process’ into twitter and instantly get thousands of examples.
How many times have you called the Marcotte article ‘hack work’ based on the opening paragraph again? How many times have you called the Meyer piece hack work exactly?
For completion: It is abhorrent that in the first quote of Marcotte’s above, she says that there are people out there who believe that Franken should be allowed get away with his actions, no fuss no muss. Without saying specifically whom she is talking about, she leaves open the door for Democrat despising people to fill in the blanks, and thereby paints a whole swath of people with those indefensible beliefs. Talk about journalism of the worst kind!
Fine. Then I’ll send her a note so she can link to this thread. You know, save her the trouble for doing the work herself.
No, I’m not complaining here about her body of work. I alluded to it. That’s all. Anyway, I read Marcotte all the time. She makes unsupported statements like this constantly.
No, it doesn’t. It shows only that I am not discussing the rest of Mayer’s article in this thread.
You did indeed address what I said about the due process/Franken defenders stuff. You then made the assumption that I missed the context of the article, with nothing to base that on except your assumptions. I clearly told you that I did not miss it. If you choose to not believe me, there is nothing I can do to convince you, so I’ll stop trying.
If you want to go on about the Mayer article, fine. I choose what I want to go on about. And you may think that you “called me on” something, but that is only in your mind. There is no gotcha here on your part. I wasn’t talking about Mayer’s article, but you brought it up, so I commented. And might I add that I made statements critical about the article!
I don’t know. You can count as well as I. 
And I haven’t characterized Mayer’s piece as anything. This is what you want me to do…
…or you could just read the thread. At this stage it isn’t about her, its about you. You concede the bad arguments exist, yet continue to insist that she needed to cite them.
You say that she says this “constantly.” But I refuse to believe it until you provide every single example of her doing that. If you don’t then your post is just “hack work”.
Mayer or Marcotte?
You’ve said nothing to dissuade me from my initial assumptions.
We can’t discuss the Marcotte article without talking about the Mayer article. The entire point of the Marcotte article is the existence of the Mayer article. You can’t correctly examine the context of the Salon artlce without looking at the article it critiqued.
Exactly. You only commented on it because I asked you about it. You were critical, but you didn’t call the entire article a hack job on the basis of a couple of sentences.
You are welcome to only criticise the Marcotte article if you like. But you have chosen to cherry-pick a single trivial thing (she didn’t bother to name any of them!!!) which had nothing to do with the substance of the article (which was a rebuttal of the Mayer article). That single trivial thing actually has nothing to do with the accusations against Franken. You can dismiss them entirely and it won’t change anything to do with the debate.
I am and did ask you how you characterized the Mayer piece. I’m asking again. Do you regard it as a “hack job” or not?
And if a few Democrats are run out of office without a fair hearing, that’s just the price we have to pay. After all, the end justifies the means, right?
It’s just been the one so far, right? After three years? Or is there someone besides Franken I’m not thinking of?
Marcotte is not so much a journalist, as a talented propagandist. The piece we’re talking about does not appear to contain any reporting. It’s an opinion-piece.
She is prone to special pleading. Take this argument:
Her claim here depends on the loaded assumption that “Democrats fought for Franken” is reasonably considered to be equivalent to ‘Democrats agreed that the charges against Franken should be investigated.’ Or to ‘Democrats agreed to provide Franken with [horrors!] due process.’ She does this sort of thing—append a heightened level of emotion to actions that don’t merit such interpretation—quite frequently. It’s a common technique in the polemicist’s toolbox.
She is indeed a hack. She’s tremendously, exceptionally skillful at it, too.
iiandyiiii said “resignations,” so I responded in the plural.
But if it turns out to be just Al Franken, would that make it okay?
It certainly makes it a very different situation than the way you were portraying it.
He just told you he was merely reflecting iiandyiii’s verbiage. So maybe drop the "way you were portraying it " thing.
You brought up the thread specifically to just provide evidence that delusional Franken supporters exist, right? If so, I just realized this is what you are saying after my last response. My point is not if they exist, here or otherwise, but simply that Marcotte should name them if she claims they are out there.
I say that Marcotte makes similar journalistic errors in other articles she writes for Salon. And she does.
Thanks for the correction. Yes, Marcotte.
If you think it is trivial that she calls whole swaths of people “delusional” and without, yes once again, naming them, fine. I don’t think it is trivial. She is trying to set up, from the beginning, that anyone who supports Franken can be dismissed immediately, because they are basically morons, and she tries to do this by dishonest means. If you don’t see this as hackery, so be it. And when you say it has nothing to do with the accusations, fine, but it most certainly has something to do with a defense of Franken, who like the rest of us is entitled to one.
As I’ve said, there are issues with the article. I’ve mentioned a few, and the most egregious is one you brought up and that I agree with, the fact that Mayer gives short-shrift to the other accusers. On the other hand, I think that Mayer provides ample evidence that Tweeden’s story can be discounted. As for the rest, there is good and bad. Just so you know I’m not ignoring you, because I have a feeling you may bring up Mayer in detail, I’m not really all that interested in going into that, though I’m sure it would make for an interesting discussion.
I don’t suppose I need to respond to this, do I?
No.
Political discourse is full of writers who take a conclusion and then construct arguments (or in some cases “arguments”) in support of that conclusion. As you noted, “hack.” That’s what they do. And she’s a good one. I not-infrequently find myself on the side she’s arguing for. But I still note that many of her tactics are not respectable.
Oh, I do too. I’d say I’m on her “side” more often than not. But it still pisses me off when she makes unsupported arguments to win over readers. She’s like another writer on Salon ::cough cough:: Chauncey DeVega who often does the same thing. Hijacking here, there is a guy named Bob Somerby who has a site called The Daily Howler. He is as liberal as they come, but his big thing is insisting that in the long run, it doesn’t benefit the left to be dishonest liars the way FOX News, et. al. are. Certainly propaganda works, but when taken to extreme it can lead to disaster. Recommended, if you are interested.