Now, Al Franken

[Fiddle_Peghead]

I just jumped over to the Daily Howler link above. It’s prime Somerby today in this daily blog lead story, “The age-old conning of the tribe!”

[Little_Nemo]

@Kent_Clark

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?

Franken was offered the opportunity to have a fair hearing. He chose a way that would allow him to avoid one.

[CarnalK]

Omg, I thought the Daily Howler had gone defunct! Thanks!

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@CarnalK

Omg, I thought the Daily Howler had gone defunct! Thanks!

You’re welcome. If you knew the original site, here’s blast from the past: http://dailyhowler.com/.

[Little_Nemo]

@Fiddle_Peghead

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.

The problem is that we have a lot of people who seem to be unable to learn from their mistakes. A Republican lies to them. After ten years or so, they finally figure out that this guy is lying. But they’re perfectly willing to believe the next Republican who comes along and tells them the same lies. And when disasters happen, the Republicans just say it was all the Democrats’ fault and these same people believe that every time as well.

There really are some people you can fool all of the time.

[madmonk28]

@Sherrerd

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.

Could you please describe this due process in Mitch McConnel’s Senate? What are the rules, where are they written and who is responsible for administering it?

[Kent_Clark]

@Little_Nemo

Franken was offered the opportunity to have a fair hearing. He chose a way that would allow him to avoid one.

Senator Lester Hunt’s son had a fair trial when he was arrested for homosexual acts in 1953. Joe McCarthy and his minions threatened to out Hunt’s son if Hunt ran for re-election. Hunt committed suicide in his office

Hunt chose a way out that allowed his son to avoid being publicly humiliated. Since his son was actually found guilty in court, was it okay for McCarthy to play that way?

[Little_Nemo]

@Kent_Clark

Senator Lester Hunt’s son had a fair trial when he was arrested for homosexual acts in 1953. Joe McCarthy and his minions threatened to out Hunt’s son if Hunt ran for re-election. Hunt committed suicide in his office

Hunt chose a way out that allowed his son to avoid being publicly humiliated. Since his son was actually found guilty in court, was it okay for McCarthy to play that way?

So to follow your logic, you feel that Al Franken resigned because Chuck Schumer was threatening to reveal some dark secret about a member of Franken’s family.

Is that what you think happened? Because I find this theory difficult to believe.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

I think Franken was told that if he did not resign, the Democrats would not support him in any way, shape or form, and that his life would be a living hell for the next 2 years.

Further, I think he was told that if he did not resign, this would be, on the whole, a very very bad thing for the party, and if he could jump on his sword as soon as possible, that would be very good, mkay.

I honestly don’t think he was left with much in the way of choice. His “choice” was to resign, or stand alone for the next two years with two parties alligned against him.

[Little_Nemo]

@Euphonious_Polemic

I think Franken was told that if he did not resign, the Democrats would not support him in any way, shape or form, and that his life would be a living hell for the next 2 years.

Further, I think he was told that if he did not resign, this would be, on the whole, a very very bad thing for the party, and if he could jump on his sword as soon as possible, that would be very good, mkay.

I honestly don’t think he was left with much in the way of choice. His “choice” was to resign, or stand alone for the next two years with two parties alligned against him.

I find that unrealistic. There’s no reason why the Democrats would have abandoned Franken if he was innocent. Or even if he could plausibly argue that he wasn’t guilty.

The Democrats gained nothing by making Franken look guilty and asking him to resign. They only did it because the alternative was worse; that an investigation would prove that Franken was guilty.

That’s what the evidence suggests; that Franken was guilty. Denying this seems to me to be the same kind of denial we’ve seen among conservatives defending Trump and Kavanaugh and Moore.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Little_Nemo

I find that unrealistic. There’s no reason why the Democrats would have abandoned Franken if he was innocent. Or even if he could plausibly argue that he wasn’t guilty.

The Democrats gained nothing by making Franken look guilty and asking him to resign. They only did it because the alternative was worse; that an investigation would prove that Franken was guilty.

That’s what the evidence suggests; that Franken was guilty. Denying this seems to me to be the same kind of denial we’ve seen among conservatives defending Trump and Kavanaugh and Moore.

I find this naive. Of course they would abandon Franken. It made them look good. His guilt or innocence was completely irrelevant.

They gained credibility. They gained from the fact they did not have to spend any effort to defend him. This occured right in the heat of the origin of the “me too” movement. They had no actual choice but to toss him aside.

Guilty? Perhaps, but not guilty of much. Guilty of bad judgement on the photo. That’s about it.

But is was definitely a political calculation to toss him aside.

You see, Democrats demand more. They won’t stand with a candidate no matter what. They want purity, to an extent. At least they want to be SEEN to be pure. This is what counts. Republicans don’t give a shit. They want to win. They don’t care if their candidate rapes kittens.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Fiddle_Peghead

You brought up the thread specifically to just provide evidence that delusional Franken supporters exist, right?

…nope.

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.

She doesn’t have to do anything of a sort. This is a nitpick. You concede these people exist, you told me you acknowledge that these people exist, I’ve linked to a twitter search result that shows thousands of these people exist. Its a claim that you don’t dispute. Its a claim that you are the only person jumping up and down demanding she satisfy. She doesn’t have to do anything to satisfy the demands of a single person on the internet.

It was an editorial: not a scholarly article. People publish opinions in editorials. And you aren’t always going to get a citation for an opinion.

I say that Marcotte makes similar journalistic errors in other articles she writes for Salon. And she does.

I’m holding you to the same standard as you are holding her. Prove it.

And expressing an opinion in an editorial is not a “journalistic error”.

If you think it is trivial that she calls whole swaths of people “delusional” and without, yes once again, naming them, fine.

I agree with her that whole swaths of people are being “delusional” about this.

I don’t think it is trivial.

That is obvious.

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.

@Marcotte

The defenders of Sen. Al Franken are perhaps the single most embarrassing group of allegedly progressive people in the Democratic coalition. Franken, who resigned from the Senate in January 2018, was accused by eight different women of sexual impropriety. Most of these accusations were both serious and credible, in that the women making them were mostly liberals who had no apparent reason to lie about Franken’s behavior toward them. Despite this, Franken’s defenders are married to the delusional belief that it’s all just a frame-up and that if he’d had “due process” in the form of a Senate ethics investigation (run by Republicans, who control that chamber) he would have somehow managed to prove this.

Here’s the thing: I agree with her. The defenses of Al Franken are embarrasing. The defense offered in the last few pages of this thread are just embarrasing to read. They really are. Franken was credibly accused of doing some stuff that ranged from innappropriate to harrassment. Franken chose to resign. Two years later with no new information to bring to the table, what more is there really to be said?

If you don’t see this as hackery, so be it.

I’ve asked you to compare it to the article that it critiqued. Compare the degree of “hackery.”

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.

Who is arguing Franken isn’t entitled to a defense?

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.

The most egregious is the fact there really wasn’t a need for the article at all.

On the other hand, I think that Mayer provides ample evidence that Tweeden’s story can be discounted.

The entire focus on Tweeden was what made it a hack job. There was nothing new. Everything about Tweeden in that article had already been raised, discussed, debated, dissected and rebutted in this very thread. I’ve already said my piece on it. I’m a photographer and I even took photos to show that the shadows in the infamous Franken photo couldn’t conclusively show that he either was or wasn’t touching Tweeden. We’ve done this already.

This was a two year old story dredged up now to provide a defense of Franken. There was no reason to do this again. Its a horrible thing to do to not only Tweeden, but to all of the other women who credibly accused Franken as well. It is not surprising she chose not to respond to a request for comment: what more would she have to say to all the same old talking points?

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.

If you really are concerned about “journalistic errors” and “hackery” then a couple of sentences in the Marcotte article should really worry you the least. Other rebuttals have been posted. There are many more. The Mayer piece wasn’t written in a day. It involved significant amount of research, it would have involved months or work. The Mayer article was not (supposed to be) editorial comment, it was (supposed to be) solid, journalistic work. It turned out to be a partisan hack-job.

[SlackerInc]

I played a small role in Franken’s ouster. On the senate.gov website where they verify you are a Minnesota resident (or at least that your computer or phone is located within the state’s boundaries) before being allowed to send feedback, I told him I was a longtime supporter but that he should resign.

I have a consistent record of opposing this noxious, dangerous idea that we automatically believe women accusers without evidence. But in this case, that photograph — not from SNL in the ‘80s but from the year before he ran for Senate — is evidence! He needed to go for that alone. Therefore, all the discussion of whether he is or is not “innocent” is completely beside the point IMO.

And FWIW, I don’t believe he was touching her in the photo. But to take that photo and put it on everyone’s keepsake from the tour—something the New Yorker writer bizarrely finds exculpatory—is just beyond the pale. And Franken himself says in the article that this is the one thing he genuinely feels bad about. As he should.

He won by the narrowest of margins after months of recounting. Does anyone believe he still would have won had this photo come out during the election?

[friedo]

@SlackerInc

Does anyone believe he still would have won had this photo come out during the election?

He probably would have done better.

[iiandyiiii]

@Kent_Clark

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?

I’m not in favor of this. And I don’t think this occurred.

[madmonk28]

@Euphonious_Polemic

…Guilty? Perhaps, but not guilty of much. Guilty of bad judgement on the photo. That’s about it…

So the other women who accused him of bad behavior, including a Democratic aide and a journalist for the Atlantic, were all lying? They were part of a GOP smear campaign?

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@Banquet_Bear

She doesn’t have to do anything of a sort. This is a nitpick. You concede these people exist, you told me you acknowledge that these people exist, I’ve linked to a twitter search result that shows thousands of these people exist.

That’s the whole point. I don’t care that there is evidence for what Marcotte claims elsewhere. I care that she shows who these people are herself, in her own piece. It’s not on the reader to go out and verify her claim about this. And for the record, I do not concede these people exist, who are delusional. If you got that impression, it is incorrect. Note that the distinction between delusional and just being wrong is important.

Now, we disagree on the importance of this, so I’ll try to explain my view one more way:

1. Marcotte writes an article referencing Mayer’s article.
2. Presumably, she expects people to go read Mayer’s article.
3. Part of Mayer’s article is about defenders of Franken.
4. Marcotte wants to discredit his defenders.
5. Thus she makes a blanket assertion that Franken’s defenders are all delusional.
6. She provides no evidence of this. She wants to prime readers to be predisposed to not believe a thing Franken’s defenders say.

Bullshit, pure and simple.

I agree with her that whole swaths of people are being “delusional” about this. That is obvious.

Prove it. Prove that there are people who are literally delusional about this. And I don’t mean people you think are delusional, because that is beside the point. I’m talking about the ones Marcotte thinks is delusional. Good luck on that!

The most egregious is the fact there really wasn’t a need for the article at all.

The entire focus on Tweeden was what made it a hack job. There was nothing new…

We agree that other accusers should have been discussed more. However, that there was nothing new is not relevant to our discussion.

If you really are concerned about “journalistic errors” and “hackery” then a couple of sentences in the Marcotte article should really worry you the least.

I have not cataloged and ranked my concerns about examples of hackery that I’ve read lately. Where this one would fall, I don’t know, but rest assured, I’ve read plenty in just the last week. This just happens to be the one I brought up here on the Dope.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Fiddle_Peghead

That’s the whole point. I don’t care that there is evidence for what Marcotte claims elsewhere. I care that she shows who these people are herself, in her own piece. It’s not on the reader to go out and verify her claim about this. And for the record, I do not concede these people exist, who are delusional. If you got that impression, it is incorrect. Note that the distinction between delusional and just being wrong is important.

Now, we disagree on the importance of this, so I’ll try to explain my view one more way:

1. Marcotte writes an article referencing Mayer’s article.
2. Presumably, she expects people to go read Mayer’s article.
3. Part of Mayer’s article is about defenders of Franken.
4. Marcotte wants to discredit his defenders.
5. Thus she makes a blanket assertion that Franken’s defenders are all delusional.
6. She provides no evidence of this. She wants to prime readers to be predisposed to not believe a thing Franken’s defenders say.

Bullshit, pure and simple.

…Marcotte said “Franken’s defenders are married to the **delusional belief **that it’s all just a frame-up”. Not “defenders are all delusional.”

You are attacking a strawman of your own creation. Plain and simple.

Prove it. Prove that there are people who are literally delusional about this. And I don’t mean people you think are delusional, because that is beside the point. I’m talking about the ones Marcotte thinks is delusional. Good luck on that!

I don’t have to prove a claim that Marcotte never made.

We agree that other accusers should have been discussed more. However, that there was nothing new is not relevant to our discussion.

Of course its relevant.

I have not cataloged and ranked my concerns about examples of hackery that I’ve read lately. Where this one would fall, I don’t know, but rest assured, I’ve read plenty in just the last week. This just happens to be the one I brought up here on the Dope.

Its hackery that appears to be created entirely from a misconception what you think Marcotte wrote, not what she actually wrote.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@Banquet_Bear

…Marcotte said “Franken’s defenders are married to the **delusional belief **that it’s all just a frame-up”. Not “defenders are all delusional.”

You are attacking a strawman of your own creation. Plain and simple.

Nope.

From Wikipedia:

A delusion is a firm and fixed belief based on inadequate grounds not amenable to rational argument or evidence to contrary, not in sync with regional, cultural and educational background. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or some other misleading effects of perception. (Emphasis mine).

Who are the people who hold beliefs about Franken which are “based on inadequate grounds not amendable to rational argument, etc” that Marcotte is talking about? Please name them.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Fiddle_Peghead

Nope.

From Wikipedia:

A delusion is a firm and fixed belief based on inadequate grounds not amenable to rational argument or evidence to contrary, not in sync with regional, cultural and educational background. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or some other misleading effects of perception. (Emphasis mine).

Who are the people who hold beliefs about Franken which are “based on inadequate grounds not amendable to rational argument, etc” that Marcotte is talking about? Please name them.

…LOL.

Are you really doing this?

The context of what she wrote is pretty clear. She didn’t argue, as you claim, that “Franken’s defenders are all delusional”. She stated "“Franken’s defenders are married to the delusional belief that it’s all just a frame-up”. There is no “nope” about it. Its what she actually did. A definition doesn’t change what she actually did.

Who are the people who hold beliefs about Franken which are “based on inadequate grounds not amendable to rational argument, etc” that Marcotte is talking about? Please name them.

Ummm, you?