Crap, I knew I’d post this in the wrong place. Mod, please close.
This was the correct place to post this; and many more people will see it here.
This is not a defense, but if you had told me in 2006 that this was happening, I would have said “Duh.” Its sort of like the Ron Jeremy allegations. Or saying that a contestant harassed Jenny McCarthy on “Singled Out” while she was sticking her tongue out and pointing at his crotch. During this era there were many publications, sports shows, etc that were completely about goof ball lecherous dudes and women there solely for T&A and jerkoff material. It was like the Howard Stern show everywhere. And I don’t think Al Franken, who was not exactly some reserved polite guy before the Senate, would be the exception. Tweeden, despite her recent appearance as some middle-aged church lady or something, was professional T&A. for dudes like Al Franken and Tom Arnold to slobber over.
:smack::smack:I saw the clip of him before I realized what they were saying about him. Looked again and shook my head. When is it going to stop? Course never will stop but crap.
I think any investigation of Sen Franken should coincide with the release of the so-called “creep list” of who to avoid on Capitol Hill. Glass houses and all…
The thing that bugs me about this one is his creepy grin while he’s grabbing her breasts. It’s like he knows he’s being a shit, but he’s going to demean this woman while she’s exhausted and passed out and can’t fight back.
I do hope this opens the DC floodgates. I think there will be more to come.
Any respect I had for what the guy has done for his constituency is gone. I would suspect that the good people of MN will voice their displeasure in the next election, should he stick around that long. It’s a shame that we will lose a voice of reason in the Senate, but fuck him.
Exactly. Fuck him. He should go.
I would say that photo does much more to demean him than the woman. And the guy who’s hiding behind the camera as well, although we’ll probably never know who he is.
He does know he’s being a shit. The grin says it all. But he was a comedian, on tour, and he probably thought this was funny. “Haha look I will pretend to grab this woman’s breasts while leering.” The camera dude probably thought so, due. Hell, across America there are still probably people who would find it funny, in a yuck-yuck sort of way.
I really don’t get why this would demean her at all. She’s asleep!
I’m not in Minnesota but I think the people are better off with him in office than not. So I don’t think he should resign.
Well like, couldnt that photo situation been staged? Why would anyone smile as they are getting caught on camera doing this? 
:dubious:
Of course it was staged and the very misguided intent was for it to be a funny picture. And it does not appear that he was actually touching her but posing as if he was. The inappropriate part of it was that it was staged without her consent and was demeaning.
This was not him being “caught” by a photographer; this was him using her as an unwilling prop in a crude joke likely intended to make fun of her. A very inappropriate thing for a Senator to do and a juvenile and unfunny thing even for a comic to do. Abusive to some degree. Not assault.
Where does one draw the line, then? “Sure, he assaulted her, but his sales numbers are up” just doesn’t cut it for me. He has also tarnished the memory of Paul Wellstone, who was his mentor and whom he tries to emulate.
We draw the line below Roy Moore. We draw the line below multiple offenses. We draw the line above people who admit their actions, apologize, and when their victims accept the apology and acknowledge that it was a mistake and not a crime.
Or we draw no lines, and anyone who has ever committed a wrongful act is disqualified from public office forever. And anyone accused of such a thing will never admit to it or apologize and then attack their accusers so that they will not want to come forward any more.
The voters can decide on this one now for Moore, and when Franken is up for re-election, if he does decide to run again.
Well said, as usual (shakes fist).
The discussion reminds me some of discussions about school systems’ “zero tolerance” policies. School violence bad. Any weapon therefore is grounds for expulsion: zero tolerance. Of course that applied equally a kid whose mother put a small knife in her lunchbox to cut her apple with, as to the kid who was carrying a handgun. Clearly they are not the same things. Zero tolerance is a well intended policy but simplistic.
Sexual assault bad. Therefore? Zero tolerance?
Is an obnoxious unwanted sloppy kiss and an instance of using the same person sleeping as a sexually exploitive prop in a failed infantile “joke”, on the same level as “pussy grabbing”, a pattern of masturbating in front of people without their consent, a pattern of using a position of power to attempt to force oral sex and to expose oneself, or molesting a 14 year old and having her touch your penis as part of a pattern of having relations with teen aged girls?
Let me ask you Chefguy, should there be no line drawn? Let us imagine it coming to light that a male politician when in college 30 to 40 years ago was making out with a woman after a date attempted to feel her breasts and was pushed away (clearly a signal of no consent) and then a minute late in the session again reached for her breasts and touched them despite having been given a no consent signal, to which she again pushed him away. Above your line? Below it?
We can define “assault” in such a way that the radical feminist position of all men are rapists becomes pretty nearly true. And by so doing I think we trivialize the issue and both lose many good people and would likely prevent others from entering public service.
And after posting I see I am past the point in the discussion … well I am leaving it anyway! 
If you want to encourage sexual harassment and absolutely destroy the Democrats’ ability to use it as an issue in the future, then a standard of “Which of your body parts can you shove into which orificies of another person who doesn’t consent depends on which party you’re in” is great. But it doesn’t appear to be either the morally correct or politically useful choice. The Democrats (and especially good 'ol Hillary) out making excuses for the behavior because of party lines are damaging their own party and people (especially women) in general.
But what about people who have a history of making politically useful apologies that they don’t actually believe, then laugh later about pulling one over on the voters with a “white lie”? From what Al Franken has written about his other apologies, he thinks his rape jokes were perfectly OK, since it was his job as a comedian to make them, and that it was no big deal to offer a fake apology about them to get elected. What makes the apology for sexual assault jokes (the pictures) different, after all at the time he was still a comedian, so the “it’s OK to tell a white lie” logic still applies?
Also, on the multiple accusations front, it hasn’t been a week and there’s already been a second accusation of some scary harassment behavior (though not sexual in nature). I really don’t think things are going to get better for him: Bay Area radio host Melanie Morgan: Al Franken harassed me
Al was a professional comic. Infantile jokes and pranks are part of the job description. He was clearly using the lady as a prop.
Bad taste? Yes! Infantile? You bet!
Sexual assualt. I don’t think so. Pretending to grope someone doesn’t cross the line.
There’s no reason for Al to resign from Congress for dumb stuff he did as a professional comic.
The voters already knew he had some vulgar material out there.
His next election campaign will be more challenging. He’ll have to somehow get past this photo and convince the voters he’s not that vulgar comic guy. Comic guy was a character he played.
Everyone has already noticed Al Franken the Senator is hard working and dedicated. He’s gotten high marks for professionalism from Democrats and Republicans.
He’s completely different from his comic persona.