The silence left by Franken leaving is deafening.

[Honeycombe8]

Anyone else feel the gulf left by the bold and frank Franken, who made the tv rounds to speak frankly about what the Repubs are doing? I recall that Franken is the only one I heard on tv who didn't mince words, when he said that Sessions lied at his hearing before the Senate.

I now more than ever appreciate how effective he was.

[CincyDem]

1. And republicans throughout the land sigh..."Mission Accomplished". n/t

[Hortensis]

138. Lol. No to the questionable OP.

And, of course, satisfaction in those who'd vote for Hitler if he was alternative to a Democratic candidate is irrelevant.

ONLY the vote counts.

Countdown to midterms: 279 days.

[C_U_L8R]

2. I do miss Senator Franken

[brooklynite]

3. I rarely saw him...because I don't watch excessive hours of cable news

...and neither does the average voter, which is why I see his departure as having far last resonance than some people here.

[Honeycombe8]

8. Well, yes...I'm speaking to those who keep up with things and are informed.

The ones who saw him questioning Sessions at the Senate hearings, who saw him on MSNBC and the Bill Mauer show, responding to questions. Never ugly, never mean, very informed, very frank. Not "Sessions didn't answer directly." It was "Sessions lied."

[FSogol]

12. Watching pundits bicker on cable tv news-talk shows is not a requirment of keeping up with things &

being informed.

[Honeycombe8]

14. I wouldn't call the Senate hearing "bickering" on cable tv news-talk shows.

And yet, that is part of being informed and up to date on what's going on.

If you didn't watch any of the hearings, and don't watch the politicians who are on the intel committees discuss matters, a person can't be well informed, IMO. That's the problem with a lot of the voters. They just don't know.

[FSogol]

16. You know newspapers still cover what is going on in this country. You overvalve cable "news."

[xxqqqzme]

124. I watch less than 2 hours of cable news.

I do watch CSPAN to catch hearings and speeches.

I was thinking about Senator Franken today and how much I miss his voice. He was the one Senator who called sessions on his perjury and thought sessions should resign

[Hortensis]

139. THIS. Watching daytime pundits is a sure path to self delusion.

As illustrated by all those who still don't realize just how bad most CNN and MSNBC "coverage" is. Being less deceiving than Fox does not make them honorable or genuinely informative.

There is value in some evening programming, and a couple special daytime shows, but almost all information is only available in written form.

[crazycatlady]

30. There's a way to be informed without watching cable news all day

[RhodeIslandOne]

13. So because you dont watch, its not happening?

A lot of voters aren’t paying attention, it’s nothing to be proud of nor a group I’d want to be with.

[Honeycombe8]

15. +1. nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

53. Exactly!

[dchill]

118. +1000

[Hortensis]

140. Oh, dear. Cable politics can be addictive,but studies show

viewers do not learn much, and importantly understand very little more about their world than people who watch no TV at all.

Rhode, you might consider opportunity cost. Every good, informative article not read while listening to people sharing the same groupthink for the 20th time is an information loss.

[BamaRefugee]

141. Please post a link to this study thanks

[Hortensis]

161. Better yet, go READ up on the quality and quantity

of news presented on cable. There's a lot more than just this one university study that compared understanding of regular viewers of any one of CNN, MSNBC, Fox, the 3 networks' evening news, and PBS evening news with each other and people who watch no news at all.

But anyone who's watching a fair amount of daytime cable can, and should, do a little analysis of their own.

Start by scanning one very good daily newspaper (NYT, WaPo? )and one good journal (The Atlantic, Vox, Mother Jones?) for the various socioeconomic/politcal events they inform their readers about that day.

Go watch your favorite channel and see how many of those are mentioned at all. Those that are, check them against print coverage for viewpoint and breadth and depth. This is very important, but you only have to do it a couple times to get the idea.

Then sit back and listen for specific attitudes being pushed and for repetition of ideas and analysis -- that groupthink John Stewart exposed every time he showed talking heads all not just saying the same things but using the very same words. All day long. Again and again and again.

Afterward, importantly, ask yourself the true import of all the "breaking" and excitedly rehashed details all day long. Is rumor or even reality of a new document that "might" do this or that, or a new name Mueller interviewed 3 months ago, really an advance in knowledge worthy of a 2-hour investment in listening? How truly more informed are we now than people who haven't heard about it?

If it makes anyone feel a bit better, on that study I can't remember quick search terms for (it was maybe 3-4 years ago), Fox viewers tested as knowing LESS than people who watched no news at all. Of course THAT only confirms what we all know.

[spooky3]

168. If this is the study to which you are referring, I think you are mis-stating the key findings.

https://www.poynter.org/news/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-viewers-worst-informed

That is probably because the report's opening paragraph is misleading; it lumps Fox (a deliberate mis-informer) viewers together with those who view MSNBC, etc. The next paragraph is more clear:

"People who watch MSNBC and CNN exclusively can answer more questions about domestic events than people who watch no news at all. People who only watch Fox did much worse. NPR listeners answered more questions correctly than people in any other category."

I realize you have said there are other studies, and as the other poster requested, I think it would be good for you to post links to those.

Ideally, the studies should control for the education levels, use of online sources of information, and other factors besides ideology that could affect viewing habits, as it is likely that these other factors affect both the choice of outlets (NPR, Jon Stewart, MSNBC, Fox) and their knowledge about events from other sources.

[Hortensis]

170. Actually, it's not. They surveyed Sunday morning shows

and John Stewart, and interestingly controlled for ideology.

“Ideological news sources, like Fox and MSNBC, are really just talking to one audience.... This is solid evidence that if you’re not in that audience, you’re not going to get anything out of watching them.”

And the summary I read on the other said that CNN and MSNBC viewers test better than nothing at all but not very well. That's not here. The most knowledgeable tested on that study were those who watched public programming.

[spooky3]

172. Please reread the paragraph I quoted, and the entire

Report.

[BamaRefugee]

174. I didn't need to see his "study" to know that FOX was dragging down the curve ;-)

[spooky3]

176. Here is another study with findings presented a little

more clearly:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/#42f7df9612ab

[RhodeIslandOne]

162. The poster was mainly talking about committee hearings

And Franken’s grilling of Sessions.

If you think that’s part of the “noise” I don’t know what to tell you.

[Hortensis]

166. "I rarely saw him...because I don't watch excessive

hours of cable news ...and neither does the average voter, which is why I see his departure as having far last resonance than some people here."

Exactly.

Immersing in CNN and MSNBC is not as distorting of reality as in Fox, but long-time participants tend to become disconnected from the thinking of those who stick to a little evening news and occasional magazine articles.

And DU is anything but a microcosm of the many millions in the "real" Democratic electorate. Many come here specifically because those around them don't share their beliefs or degree of interest.
This factional head-butting thread over an "issue" most Democratic voters don't know exists, much less care about, illustrates that dramatically.

[RhodeIslandOne]

171. So wait a sec.....

.....you are dismissing the issue of Sessions and his role in the Mueller and Russia investigation?

Is that you, Sarah?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

39. But you do seem to spend what feels like "excessive hours" here

condescending to people and making lots of tone deaf comments. To each his own I guess.

[USALiberal]

43. And remember, he talks a lot about being rich also! n.t.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

45. "How dare you, you, you....peasant?!!!" :-p

[brooklynite]

46. And as a result of that, I've had the chance to sit down with Franken personally

I like him, and supported his campaigns financially. My point is that I don't see him (or any other Senator) as indispensible, and my utterly emotionless analysis tells me few others do either. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

[USALiberal]

51. I knew you would bite! :-)

[brooklynite]

47. Feel free to ignore anything I say...

...I deal with politics in the real world.

[OilemFirchen]

78. No you don't, by your own admissions.

This is, generally, a political message board, so it should come as no surprise that something like the absence of Senator Franken would be discussed. The "real world" is mostly tended to at home and at work and is centered on the mechanics of daily life. Which, ironically in your case, is politics.

[Demsrule86]

93. divisive with an election less than a year away and pointless unless someone wants Democrats to lose

I am sure that is not your motivation naturally...but explain what the point is? He is gone...time to move on and win...or it really won't matter anymore.

[OilemFirchen]

102. My point?

To rebut the poster's observation - an irrelevant and incorrect one - made within the confines of an OP that will absolutely not shatter anyone's earth.

Hackles down, please.

[Demsrule86]

103. I don't have 'hackles' just tired of seeing Franken used in order to divide us...not saying you...

We have an election coming...I was unhappy how the Franken matter was handled but it is over.

[USALiberal]

42. LOL, you really are a class act. nt

[Farmer-Rick]

75. I don't watch hours of cable news, I have a farm to run

But I noticed a marked lack of intelligent and frequently humorous criticism of the traitor in chief and his scrambling boot lickers. I do miss Al Franken.

[wasupaloopa]

98. He is one of the best we had. To blow him off because you don't know of him is lame

[lunasun]

101. I don't even have cable

I don't get the comment but miss him in the senate

[R B Garr]

4. Absolutely, and look how emboldened they

are acting. It’s a huge void. A huge advantage given to evil, manipulative people. It is just mind-boggling. Maddening, and they are loving it. Franken was not going to let them get away with anything. Sessions must be thrilled.

[Honeycombe8]

6. +1. nt

[VOX]

128. Cannot express it any better.

Thanks. The whole episode still makes my blood boil.

[Lucinda]

5. Yep. n/t

[Baitball Blogger]

7. This was his time.

We needed everyone with his intelligence and gumption to fight this evil that is overtaking this country.

[Rene]

31. so very true

[bdamomma]

113. They silenced him

so sad, I hope he resurfaces when the time is right.

[enough]

9. Absolutely. NT

[cstanleytech]

10. Franken should move to one of the states held by a Repugnant Governor and run

to oust them in 2020.

[flying_wahini]

18. We would love to have him move to Texas! I will help him pack!

[no_hypocrisy]

11. I'm listening to the audiobook of Al Franken: Giant of the Senate.

Last edited Tue Jan 30, 2018, 08:30 PM - Edit history (1)

What we lost is immeasurable.

[teamster633]

95. I was half way through the book when he was pushed out...

...and couldn't bring myself to pick it back up until this week. Finished it last night and have to agree; what we lost is immeasurable. How we lost him is unconscionable. In closing the book, he spoke to the reason he was so dangerous to so many; the one sin that he couldn't abide was lying. He felt duty-bound to find the truth regardless of the consequences. He made too many people feel too uncomfortable.

[NCTraveler]

17. Appreciating him "now more than ever" seems to be a trend.

He was a solid Senator.

[gratuitous]

19. It's a shame

If only disgraced former members of Congress were allowed to be on the air offering commentary. I'm sure we'd all be very anxious to hear what the likes of Newt Gingrich, Joe Walsh, Joe Scarborough, and Tom DeLay have to say about current affairs. But no, the media outlets have their standards, so Al Franken is, like, totally fer boatin'.

[mahannah]

20. I'd like to hear his voice. DC or wherever.

[ananda]

21. Yes!

Now you can see why Stone and the Reeps targeted him!

[BlueAZure]

22. This will haunt the Democratic Party in at least the next two election cycles

I happened to be seeing this right after watching a clip of Sen Gillibrand from her appearance on The View. In it, she proceeds to call the allegations against former Sen Franken "eight credible allegations" (something with which few here seem to agree), and that Franken was "Entitled to a hearing, but not entitled to my silence".

She then goes on to say we should be "holding out elected leaders to the highest standard, not the lowest standard.." On this, I entirely agree.

And since, condemning someone based on what she, herself, calls "allegations" with no regard to burden of proof or due process, is by no means the "highest standards", it stands to reason that Sen Gillibrand should resign immediately, along with all those who condemned Sen Franken along with her.

Sen Gillibrand had already lost my support. She has now lost my vote.

[LittleGirl]

25. I cannot agree with you more!

I have lost my respect for her despite her reasoning on the view. She took out one of our brightest stars of the liberal side of the aisle and I hope she realizes what she has done. Taking out Al Franken will probably cost her her future and I won't be too unhappy about that. She blew it and I'm mad as hell about her doing that. I would really like to see those that accused him stand up and tell us exactly what he did wrong. I don't believe any of them after finding out Roger Stone knew it was coming before it was announced. He was set up and Kirsten fell right into the trap.

[Owl]

80. Exactly!

K&R

[LittleGirl]

26. Welcome to DU !!! N/T

[oasis]

49. Gillibrand's poor judgement disqualifies her for the presidency.

[rockfordfile]

58. I'm little curious, did she really beg for a donation from Trump?

[oasis]

61. She's a NY senator, so he likely donated to her campaign. I

can't see a person of her stature begging for anything.

[Demsrule86]

144. Seriously...bandying about right wing bullshit?

[DFW]

60. I was in Washington having lunch with an insider recently

This guy knows EVERYBODY, and had just been with Al Franken. He knows Gillibrand, and, for that matter, most of the Senate. He said Gillibrand is out for the 2020 nomination, and doesn't care whose body she has to trample to get there.

He also said the allegations against Franken were complete Republican packaging (he works at a conservative Republican outfit), and are anything BUT credible. Franken's apology was a blanket attempt at a defense against a broadside of accusations for something that wasn't true in the first place. He had been taken completely by surprise by the whole thing because there was no truth to them. It was just a distraction tactic during the Alabama Senatorial election to try to distract from Moore's perversions. That is the reason why he didn't understand he needed a defense against them.

Franken's final decision to resign only came when the governor of Minnesota jumped the gun and appointed his successor before he had even decided to resign. Enough was enough, but the whole thing was a lucky bulls-eye for a Republican dirty tricks team shooting in the dark blindfolded.

Where Gillibrand is on especially shaky ground is when she alludes to "credible" allegations. They gain artificial credibility when people of her standing jump on the bandwagon. A hearing and critical interrogation of the "witnesses" and "victims" would have produced a lot of backtracking and very vague memories. That is why his tormentors were not eager for any such processes to take place. Those of his Democratic Senate colleagues that regret their action obviously cannot now come forward and say so without great shame and embarrassment, and Franken is too much of a "Mensch" to try to force the issue.

Now, I can't reveal from whom I got this, and therefore it carries diminished weight for anyone who is skeptical, and that is fair enough. But I wish that anyone with such healthy skepticism would train their skeptical eyes with equal sharpness on the details of Al Franken's accusers, and see if their allegations don't dissipate like fog in the sunlight once some serious scrutiny is turned upon them. There is a very good reason none of Al Franken's tormentors wanted such scrutiny turned on his accusers. The bandwagon they had all jumped on would have quickly lost a wheel or two.

[druidity33]

63. did he hint

at what Franken is considering doing in the near future?

just curious...

[DFW]

66. He did indeed

And the answer as of two weeks ago was "he doesn't know yet." He was still hanging around Washington at the time, but that could change (or not) at any moment. I pleaded to have a dinner date set up with the three of us (plus wives if the wives wished) when I will next be in Washington, which is April, and he said he would try, but there was no guarantee that Al would still be in the DC area by then.

[druidity33]

130. what do you think he should do?

And keep us posted if that dinner does happen! Always fun to hear about your adventures...

Cheers.

K&R

[DFW]

135. I have no idea what he SHOULD do

I'm sure he's torn between going back into show business, going back to Minnesota to run for Governor (he is still immensely popular there), or sticking around Washington and getting recruited by MSNBC for some serious money, which I don't think he has ever made. Maybe even join a prestigious think tank? He's a big boy, I'm sure he doesn't need my input to make a decision.

I absolutely will let DU know if the dinner happens, but if Al and our mutual friend say "off the record" I will respect that, of course. I know a few Duers that would contemplate having me waterboarded to spill all, but in DC, you do that to your enemies, not your friends.

[dalton99a]

131. Thanks for the update!

[DFW]

147. Not much of an update, I'm afraid

But I can understand that only a month has passed since Franken left the Senate, and he probably has been showered with proposals that he has to sift through, and weigh the merits of.

[Hortensis]

173. "Franken's final decision to resign only came when

the governor of Minnesota jumped the gun and appointed his successor before he had even decided to resign." Interesting. I don't remember reading that.

All sensible Dems knew this was a right-wing hit aimed at Franken and also meant to confuse voters into thinking Republican sins were ours. Roy Moore's in particular. No news there.

But the notion that all the accusations would just fall apart under Republican-dominated questioning is very unrealistic. Weren't there 8 accusers by the time we threw in the towel, with possibly more to come? Even Hannity's Tweeden would have done great damage as her stories were dismantled. There is absolutely no way to prove Franken's tongue wasn't in someone's mouth or his hand squeezing a buttock, and there'd be no way to treat these "victims" with anything but marked respect and win. Every salacious made-up detail would have been all over the media for days, and possibly weeks, and so would even the slightest whiff of anything that could be spun as victim shaming. Major trap.

That most of those who believed then Franken needed to resign (attitudes of nearly 3/4 of his colleagues were known even if not announced) now don't, seems very unlikely. For sure it would have been dragged out as noisily and nastily as possible to try to save the senate seat Roy Moore was running for. And in the end Franken would have been smeared far worse than he was when he announced he would resign.

[DFW]

177. Yes, there were eight accusers

Not a ONE of them producing anything credible except what the media was being fed. And, you will notice, not a peep from any of them since his resignation. Very unlikely, I think, if any of them had a complaint worthy of pursuing. Obviously one can't prove a negative, but the onus of proof is on the accuser, not the defendant. I don't care if Bannon had fifty more women "victims" waiting (and no one can prove he didn't) to tell how Al Franken had harassed them. If there were a whiff of truth to ANY of this, I'm sure Al would have announced his resignation long before he did. I go with his decades-long friend's account. Their wives are good friends, too, and wives have a sixth sense about whether or not their husbands are up to something wrong (at least all the ones I know, including my own). Al and Franni are very dedicated to each other, and there would have been rumbles if Al had been doing this habitually (and eight different women constitutes "habitually" to me).

As for those who "believed" he had to resign, I doubt that number, too. I got the distinct impression many of those who publicly "believed" he had to resign said so because they felt they needed to for PR purposes. Obviously I haven't polled the Democratic Senate caucus, but making a terse statement and then acting as if the whole thing had never happened doesn't ring true to me. Only Gillibrand is still huffing and puffing, which sounds to me like she had a point to prove and is finding herself more and more alone in needing to prove it (and still unable to). Washington being Washington, even if I could get some Democratic Senators to admit this privately, it would be strictly off the record, and I could never repeat it, so that point isn't even worth arguing.

Your last point is, I fear, the most valid. If he had chosen NOT to resign, the immense Republican media juggernaut would have been turned on him with full fury, if for nothing else, then for revenge for Moore's defeat. Would that have been worth the distraction? THAT is a good question. A lot of time and resources would have had to be diverted to fight off the "accusations," and accusations are always on page one of the newspaper, where retractions and exonerations are always in the back just before the used car ads. But in the interest of justice and making a stand against false Republican innuendo, I would have preferred to fight this one. The constitution specifically allows Americans to confront their accusers. Al Franken is an American, wanted to confront his accusers, and was not given the chance. A guilty man, no matter where he was from, would not have wanted to.

Again, I trust my source completely, and know how well he knows Al Franken, and because I can't reveal more than that, I was aware that I would have to put up with some skepticism. That will just have to remain that way. From what I could gather from my own sources that I believe to be unimpeachable, Al Franken is completely innocent of all charges and complaints brought against him in this brief smear campaign. If someone else finds them to be credible, especially if there is quality rather than quantity, then so be it. We all have our reasons for finding credibility in our points of view, and I respect that others might not (and for obvious reasons, cannot) share mine.

[Hortensis]

178. Again very interesting, thanks. Only a few zealous fringies here

don't know that Franken is a friend to women and women's rights. The vast majority of us know that and would vastly have preferred to fight for him -- at least while we didn't have to accept the consequences and lose him anyway.

Wish you could share the rest of your source's thoughts.

Just one thing I'd question: "the onus of proof is on the accuser, not the defendant. THIS after 25 years of successful "the allegation is the crime" against Hillary? DU itself is full of people whose viewpoints are hopelessly warped by years of allegations, even though their investigations always came up empty.

No, in politics there is no onus of proof on the accuser. The accusation is the missile.

And that's really the point.

[DFW]

182. I wish I could share more, too

I remember back in 2008, when I broke the news of Obama's selection of Biden as his VP. It was in the late morning, I think, and the announcement was set for the late afternoon. To be careful, I posted it as a "has anyone else heard this, too?" thread, but I knew from the beginning. I got crapped on anyway. What makes YOU so special? How could YOU possibly know, and the networks don't? blah, blah, blah, etc etc. Later on that evening when the announcement was made, all of ONE of the nasty posters apologized. The rest of them went on to bash someone else.

I waited five years to reveal how I knew. It was via my brother and his son, my nephew. Pure chance, and I might have gotten some very dedicated and worthy people in trouble, or, worse, even gotten them fired if it had gotten out, so I bit my tongue, and kept quiet. Sometimes, you just have to do that, especially in Washington (my brother lives there).

I don't completely agree that the accusation is the missile--not all of the time, anyway. I know that Joseph McCarthy got away with it for years, and he ruined far too many lives, but in the end, he was as disgraced as anyone, and faded into an ugly obscurity for his efforts. I hope Bannon, McConnell, Ryan and the rest of their despicable team enjoy a similar fate.

[Hortensis]

183. Oh, so do we all. But McCarthy's allegation missiles

destroyed many people. He targeted and hurt hurt hundreds over almost a decade. That he finally took himself out by not knowing when to stop does not erase that decade.

And what example could anyone offer to claim that 25 years of allegations and politically motivated investigations into manufactured scandals didn't ultimately destroy both of Hillary's runs for president? The Clintons' toughness and amazing readiness for decades of battle--and survival--obscure the reality of what they went through. It doesn't erase it.

I envy you your friends. A relative was associated with both of Bill Clintons' campaigns and saw a lot of them both in those days, but he's been out of it for a long time. I'm told he still chats with friends and friends of friends who are still in politics, but he's very discrete and, aside from a rare story when he's in the mood, we have to wait for the book. If he'd kindly write one.

[Honeycombe8]

74. DFW, I believe you. I believe you because this is what I thought from the start...

well, from the time Gillibrand (a virtual unknown before then) announced they were asking Franken to resign. At that moment, I thought pretty much what you say in your post. Gillibrand is going for 2020, she needs to be high profile, some others first on the bandwagon also have presidential aspirations, Franken was hogging the limelight and was very popular, some people were calling for Franken to run for President, Franken was immensely successful at the Senate Hearings of Sessions and others, the Republicans would love to get rid of Franken, the first woman to allege harassment against Franken (the gag photo of Franken pretending to grab her boobs) is a conservative and first made the allegation on a conservative air media (Fox, I think).

It seemed clear to me what was going on.

Gillibrand and the others were very eager to have a reason to jump on the bandwagon.

[spooky3]

90. DFW, thank you very much for posting this. I hope the insider doesn't object to your

sharing the info.

It confirms much of what I believed previously and rings true 100% to me (and the parts I didn't know about make a lot of sense). As I told a family member recently, the only allegations that seemed to be at all credible were those of the first accuser, and those were not presented correctly in the "bawdy" context of the USO shows and differing perceptions of the skit. Further, she specifically said she did not want Franken to resign.

I wrote to both of my Senators about this at the time it was happening. Recently, I received a standard response from Kaine (I did not request one). I was quite disappointed to read that he privately urged Franken to resign--even though he didn't jump on the public bandwagon.

[DFW]

136. I don't think I revealed anything most people on DU didn't already suspect was true

Ironically, I think Al Franken might have been a Gillibrand supporter for the nomination before this blew up. She will not be able to count on her "friend's" support now. If Franken had any presidential aspirations, he certainly never mentioned any that were passed on to me.

I am disappointed to hear that about Kaine as well. Et tu, Timmy?

[spooky3]

149. Thanks. Yes, I wasnt in the camp that thought

Gillibrand was motivated to “trample” in order to eliminate a rival. It looked to me as if, given her advocacy for women in the military and elsewhere, and given the annoyance of having to trust in an ethics process controlled by Repubs and how she might be criticized as a hypocrite if other accusers came forward, she felt it was time to take a stand. (If so I think this was wrong.) But it appears at least this insider thinks otherwise—though if he is a Republican, the typical Repub hostility toward “ambitious” women may color his views.

I didn’t ask for a reply from Sen. Warner but I’m going to let myself believe that he said nothing to Franken because he believed the process should play out and/or that dirty tricks were at work (that was the essence of my message to him and I’m sure he received others).

[DFW]

150. Small correction

My friend is no Republican. He is the token sane/smart person working in an outfit surrounded by Republicans. As his IQ is probably 20 points higher than the smartest Republican there, they keep him around.

His opinions of Gillibrand are drawn from observation--logical, since objective observation and analysis is what he does. Republicans aren't overly partial to objective analysis of themselves these days, so he seems like a flaming liberal to them nowadays, but he was never that. He IS as much of a feminist as one can be in his line of work. I know he adores and respects his wife of I don't know how many decades, and he believes that Constitution grants all rights to men and women equally, even if that was not the original intention of the framers. He is paid to give objective and neutral analyses, and that is what he does. If objective and neutral observations make Republicans look like garbage these days, that is not his fault, even if his colleagues may think so.

I think his reaction to Gillibrand was more one of surprised dismay than hostility. Disappointment, if you will. He certainly harbors no "hostility" whatsoever toward ambitious women. On the contrary, if anything, you could say he admires them. The only politicians I have ever heard him really dump on (besides the obvious clowns like Gohmert and Scalise) were Trump, McConnell and Ryan, all three of whom landed in positions of leadership by either happenstance (Trump and Ryan) or a vacuum into which they slipped (McConnell).

I'm with you on Warner.

[spooky3]

167. Thank you for the additional info. I did not mean in any way to disparage your

friend and apologize if that is how it came across. I was just explaining my thinking as a non-insider, and how, earlier, I was trying to give Gillibrand the benefit of the doubt.

[DFW]

169. In January 2015, none other than Howard Dean was giving Gillibrand the same positive scrutiny

He was telling me that she was one to watch, possibly for 2016 if Hillary chose not to run, but definitely later on down the line. Not everyone reveals all in their nature in one go (though Howard did exactly that, to much deserved praise).

As for my friend, no offense taken. I can't say in this case who he is, so I understand if some skeptics out there think I'm making this up completely. Those who have known me for a long time know I'm not, but others have no reason to know that.

[hay rick]

112. Exactly what it looked like to me.

I'm on the anyone-but-Gillibrand bandwagon for 2020. I think I have a lot of company.

[ms liberty]

125. Your account carries weight to us old timers who know you.

And it is about what I expected. I am still furious about this. What important questions have gone unasked with his absence? What has not been discovered because of the absence of his sharp questioning?

[octoberlib]

143. Since Al Franken resigned, there have been no further allegations.

Mission accomplished , indeed. Thanks for the informative post. This won't help Gillibrand in 2020. Neither will her voting record while in the House.

[DFW]

146. Yeah, funny thing about that.

We could dig up video tapes of ten Republican Senators raping and murdering women at five different orgies, and probably not a one of them would be asked by the Republican leadership to even say they were sorry. Al Franken gets a flurry of accusers that no one seems eager to have testify against him, and he has to resign the Senate.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

[LeftInTX]

148. Thanks for the insider info.............

The thing is, Gillibrand probably won't win the nomination.

Although she has Hillary's seat, she certainly doesn't have Hillary's name recognition or accomplishments. Hillary was warmer and more likeable. Gillibrand has done some good, but I can't see her getting the nomination.

If she thinks "Me Too" is a tactic to win the presidency, it won't work. I'm not disparaging "me too", it's just that being president is so much more than one issue.

[dlwickham]

180. does this "insider" have a name

or are we just supposed to believe what you posted

[DFW]

181. He certainly does have a name

And no, you are under no obligation whatsoever to believe a word of what I posted. Those who know me from 12 years of DU, and know who some of my friends are, know full well that I never post anything like that unless it's true. I already addressed the credibility issue in this thread. Please read what I posted. If you choose to believe it's total made-up hogwash, by all means, be my guest. That is certainly your right, and far be it from me to infringe upon it.

[lunamagica]

65. So she's his friend...with friends like her...

Last edited Thu Feb 1, 2018, 01:36 PM - Edit history (1)

[Honeycombe8]

73. I agree. I think it wasn't about the allegations at all. nt

[Demsrule86]

88. No it won't despite the best efforts of GOP types...and those who ahem support them.

[stuffmatters]

132. The glaring contradiction in Gillibrand's "Franken Spiel" was that Franken was denied a hearing

She along with the other Democratic Senators railroaded him without allowing him the due process of a Senate Investigation to which he was entitled.
That's what pisses everybody off.

[mythology]

23. Apparently you're watching/listening to different shows

Just on the Rachel Maddow show recently Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, Richard Blumenthal, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, Mazie Hirono and Xavier Becerra have all been on.

The blind hero worship that only Franken ever said anything is a little mind boggling.

[crazycatlady]

35. I find the hero worship similar of him similar to fans of a celebrity

I was a teenage fangirl once. I remember that hero worship.

[spooky3]

97. I find such comments insulting to many of your fellow DUers. nt

[crazycatlady]

104. I guess I never joined his fanclub

I thought he was a good senator but never did anything out of the ordinary or to stand out (disclaimer-- I cut the cord so don't watch TV). I'm on the east coast and almost never heard about him for his entire time in office.

I"m also not old enough to remember his SNL career.

[spooky3]

105. you don't need to join his fan club; just respect the fact that others here have good reason

for (a) admiring his unique contributions and being distressed that he is no longer able to offer them and/or (b) being distressed about the unjust process used to evict him, and that his colleagues did not seem to learn ANYTHING from what happened (thus the same Republican dirty tricks can succeed again) and/or (c) other legitimate reasons to be concerned/alarmed.

[crazycatlady]

107. I just have a hard time respecting people who want another Democrat's head on a stick

For awhile, Kirsten Gillibrand was treated worse than Roy Moore or Donald Trump on this form. That I can't respect.

I also can't respect people who find a victim not credible because she won't give her name. That sets a dangerous precedent. I've been a victim of groping myself before (6th grade) and only one person got in trouble. Me. My reputation for the rest of my school career was tarnished because I dared (accurately) accuse a popular boy of groping me. (I also ended up getting detention for doing so and not a single adult believed me.)

Coming forward as a victim (as one of Franken's did) and giving her name leads to character assassination. Everyone called her a RW troll. I don't care what your politics are-- a victim is a victim.

[spooky3]

108. The allegations were not credible for a variety of reasons, but I did not see people on this thread

arguing that the ethics committee should NOT have investigated to determine whether there was merit in any of them or more evidence presented to support them. And I don't recall many DUers (if anyone), at other times, saying they wanted the ethics investigation shut down because they simply did not want to listen to the accusers. They didn't, for example, label those who supported Gillibrand's position as "fangirls" or "fanboys" of Gillibrand.

See also DFW's posts in this thread.

MANY of us here (including me) have experienced sexual harassment well beyond groping and at many times during our careers and in other contexts. I would say that most of us want there to be justice both for accusers and accused. That was a key reason why so many here were disgusted by Gillibrand's leading the railroading of Franken and creating an environment where the process could not play out.

In any case, it is inappropriate, in my opinion, to put an insulting label on the legitimate opinions of others here, simply because you don't agree.

[crazycatlady]

109. There are many DUers who dismissed the accusers because they won't give their name

And I'm done with this conversation.

You may think it is inappropriate, but I also had people PM me in support of KG and said they were scared to show support for her on this forum. To me that kind of behavior is unacceptable. If I wanted places to bash Democrats, I can head to Brietbart (from the right) or Alternet (from the left).

[spooky3]

110. Happy to end the conversation. Have a nice evening.

[Jakes Progress]

198. So you have no respect for Kirsten Gillibrand?

[USALiberal]

44. Your lack of knowledge on this topic is scary! nt

[Honeycombe8]

77. You just made my point.

Harris, Booker, Schumer....not very popular, clear, strong, or noteworthy. All three were only too eager to jump on the bandwagon to stab their co-Senator in the back. Why? Because of political strategy (they thought). They strategized wrong. Booker is overly dramatic.

Schiff is around and vocal, and carrying the water almost by himself. I wonder how he is able to face the onslaught of the events every day. He should get an award. Blumenthal is making the rounds, and that's good. These two are making the best points in the best ways.

I've never seen Becerra anywhere, but he's not nationally known, so not a strong voice. And wasn't present at any hearings and unaware intimately of NATIONAL EVENTS, since he's a state politician in CA.

I've seen Hirono. She's pretty clear in her statements, but not a strong speaker. And not nationally known.

No replacement for Franken that I see on the horizon. Maybe Joe Kennedy will make an impression. We'll see. The responding politician typically doesn't do well, but sometimes does. Maybe this will be one of those times.

[sinkingfeeling]

24. Absolutely. Chalk his departure up as another GOP win.

[saidsimplesimon]

27. He was effective?

What legislation did he sponsor?

I love the man, am disappointed by the behaviour.

[LoveMyCali]

29. What did he sponsor?

How about:

https://www.congress.gov/member/al-franken/F000457

[saidsimplesimon]

34. Where were we when he

was being railroaded (my word)? In the words of a great musician, composer and human being, Carole King.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

?rel=0" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[LoveMyCali]

36. I don't know where everyone else was

but I was emailing, tweeting and calling Franken's office begging him not to resign and Gillibrand's (my representative) office telling her how disappointed I was in her lack of judgement.

[saidsimplesimon]

41. It is rhetorical.

Thank you, I did all of the above to no avail too.

[Honeycombe8]

81. What behavior? You have fallen for the Republican spin.

There was no inappropriate behavior, that I'm aware of. Can you identify it? Or do I need to send you the video of that woman twirking her butt up against someone at the same USO event where she claims harassment for a gag picture by a comedian, who isn't even touching her.

Franken was the most effective speaker the Democrats had. The ONLY Democrat that people were asking to run for President. And that spelled his demise. Gillibrand, Harris, Booker, and others couldn't have that. He was sucking up the attention.

Franken sponsored more legislation than Obama did.

Occasionally there is someone who is just more effective at communications. There's something about them. They're extremely likeable, have a clear voice, have a gift of language, quick on their feet, articulate, etc. Franken was such a person. So was Obama and most successful politicians. Many of those who have presidential aspirations will never be President, I'm afraid, because they are lacking this gift. And it is a gift. Not something you can learn.

[writerJT]

189. Video

Watch this and count how many times he says he’s “sorry” and that he’s “embarrassed” and “ashamed” of himself. He surrendered immediately. Never gave himself a chance.

[Honeycombe8]

192. I repeat: What behavior? Do you have definitive information and proof of any

sexual harassment?

Please post it here:

__________________________________________________________________


An apology by someone who is trying to go along to get along does not proof make, as you know. I'm asking about WHAT behavior that constitutes sexual harassment:

________________________________________________________________________

[writerJT]

193. The questions you ask here

are the very questions he should have demanded answers to instead of repeadly saying he was sorry and embarrassed and ashamed of himself.

Instead, he surrendered without a fight, without asking the questions you’re asking us.

And honestly, there’s no reason people on a message board should have to prove something Franken himself never once asked the accusers to prove.

“Going along to get along” (your words) in the face of career-ending allegations? Seems kind of weird to me.

[Honeycombe8]

194. I repeat: Please post here the proof of sexual harassment by Franken.

Your inability to cite any valid proof of sexual harassment by Franken speaks volumes.

You're blaming the nice guy accused for the actions of duped politicians and fake accusers. You're blaming a nice person's nice response for the foolish and stupid response of other politicians to the planned manipulation of Republicans? Ha. That's a new one. Gillibrand can kiss her presidential aspirations goodbye. So can Harris and Booker.

You are judging him GUILTY without any investigation whatsoever, to protect your politician because she, or he, did something stupid.

HERE is his response to the vague allegations.

[writerJT]

195. I didnt judge him guilty.

Again, I’m stating the fact that he surrendered without a fight. That’s all I’m judging him on. He folded before anyone had a chance to have his back.

You’re doing more to defend him than he did for himself, which surprises me because he was never the type of back down on anything he felt was important and worthy of a fight. Unfortunately, he didn’t give that a chance to work.

[byronius]

28. Yeah, I agree. Sharpest tool in the shed's now rusting out in the field.

But everyone knows we're so full of honor and self-sacrifice now that they'll vote for us, right?

All those Alt-Righties are going to come in to the Big Tent now, yessiree. Because America's not a goddamned Reality Show culture, no, not at all. People like it when other people throw their Best under the bus without due process of any type for the sake of moral imperative.

Winning!

#$%#$.

[cwydro]

32. Spot on.

[Honeycombe8]

84. Yeah..just like Clinton gave back Weinstein donations, but the Repubs aren't giving back Wynn's.

We're going to self-righteous ourselves right out of having any say in running the country.

[LexVegas]

33. ...

[lark]

37. I am more pissed than ever at Gillibrand and other backstabbing Dems.

None of the 46 will get my usual Democratic nominee contributions, not that they were significant in the big picture. They however, do mean something to me. I hope Joe Kennedy, Adam Schiff or Ted Lieu runs.

[DFW]

62. They will get mine, but only after the primaries.

They will have to win their primaries without me (and I'm confident they will). I have already gotten the usual solicitations in the mail (Dallas sends my mail on to me here in Europe). I sent them back without a check and the name "Al Franken" written in bold letters. They have everything computerized, and can see in an instant that I have have been a long-term supporter of most of them. They may not care, as I am just one peon living overseas, but, like Cheryl Crow sang, "I've got a feeling I'm not the only one."

[Tatiana]

117. Ohhh that's a good idea.

I'm stealing it.

[Skittles]

115. and the DUers who fell for that bullshit

[geardaddy]

38. I miss my senator.

[Raker13]

40. Who will step up?

Where are the Patriots who if nessary will fall on a sword?

[MoonRiver]

48. I will never forget what happened to him.

[Honeycombe8]

86. +1. My memory is long about things like this. nt

[Trumpocalypse]

52. Effective how?

How many pieces of substantive legislation did he get passed during his time in the senate?

[mn9driver]

55. Since you asked:

http://m.startribune.com/klobuchar-franken-among-most-productive-senators-for-number-of-bills-passed/404084706/

[Honeycombe8]

89. +1. nt

[Trumpocalypse]

106. That's quanity

Not quality. I asked about substantive pieces of legislation.

And looking directly at the source, the facts don't match to what is stated in the article: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2015/senate/bills-enacted
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2016/party-senate-democrat/bills-enacted-ti

[mn9driver]

54. So far, Senator Smith does not seem to be filling that void.

I wish her the best, but she is not a replacement for Franken. She has to run for the office in November and has never run for individual office before. She was a good lieutenant governor, but that position isn’t particularly public or controversial. Minnesota is a closely divided state and there is a real chance she will be defeated by her Republican opponent.

Franken’s seat is one that should not have been in play this year. His voice is one that should not have been silenced this year. And we have no one to blame for that except our own “zero tolerance”, “allegations are credible when I say they are” Democratic Senators. Especially Gillebrand.

[pazzyanne]

68. Thank you!

You said what needed to be said with sentiments that mirror my own. She is a traitor to the Democratic cause in my mind. Tina Smith is not a strong advocate as she has never had to be. Wrong time for on-the-job training. One of the things said on the View by Megan McCain stopped me dead in my tracks. She said that Democrats - Democrats need to run a strong candidate like Tim Pawlenty. I could not believe what my ears heard, but she repeated it more than once. I lived through the Pawlenty years in Minnesota and could not wish that on our poor nation. Okay, time to fold up the soap box and put it away. Oh, Kristin Gillibrand will not get my vote either. She did not come across as credible or intelligent, in my humble opinion!

[marieo1]

71. minngal

Kristen Gillibrand is the one that took Al Franken down!! She could see Al Franken had presidential qualities and she herself wants to be president so what better than to get rid of a possible opponent!! She will not ever be my president!!

[Honeycombe8]

91. I agree. nt

[DFW]

142. They replaced an oak tree with an acorn

Anyone expecting that acorn to grow into another oak tree in eight weeks knows knows something about horticulture that I don't.

[janterry]

56. He really had the gravitas to step up and speak to what is happening

I still hope he finds a second act

[elmac]

57. I also miss our Democracy

I'm old enough to remember the good ol days. Pity the younger generation will never know anything other then a fascist government dictatorship.

[Angry Dragon]

59. Would make a good voice on DU

[lunamagica]

64. No one is happier about this than Sessions

[SCVDem]

67. Where in hell

Is OUR mulligan.

I don't believe the accusers!

Where is the trial?

[marieo1]

69. minngal

And.......you wonder why they wanted to get rid of him. I knew he would make a good President because he worked hard to get to the truth. I knew some of the other senators wanted him gone because they were thinking about a presidential bid themselves and they could see he was presidential material!!! Then these same Senators pushed him out and for what? A comedy skit!! And he wasn't even touching anyone. I have since learned all of his accusers were DJT supporters!!

[zentrum]

70. Huge Gulf.

[orangecrush]

72. The silence

is deafening.

And terrifying.

[Honeycombe8]

94. Yes. Things have gotten worse lately. I'm disappointed in the Dem responses...

They've been sporadic and weak. Except for Schiff, bless his heart. I don't know how he's still standing. He's fighting this deluge on a daily basis, losing every fight because we're not in control.

[orangecrush]

96. Thanks

at least here we know we aren't alone.

[Honeycombe8]

100. +1

[BlancheSplanchnik]

76. I hate thinking about it. 😪

I’m depressed enough.

[badhair77]

79. His departure has left a hole.

I totally think the “allegations” were payback for the Sessions questioning. The Rs and Faux News won. And I won’t be supporting Gillibrand in any primary. I’m glad Joy Behar questioned her so she had to address it to a Franken fan.

[Meowmee]

83. Yes

It’s terrible what happened, and maybe even worse not to have that powerful and genuine advocate for we the people. I saw him frequently on various news sources and I was always impressed. I’m not much of a news person either. Not many speaking either about the McCarthy like behavior that caused this.

[Demsrule86]

85. No, I feel these sort of posts (no offence intended) are divisive and take the focus off an election

less than year away...must win election.

[kcr]

99. Oh, well n/t

[Jakes Progress]

133. How do you feel about one of ours selling out

another of ours for ambition? You don't want us to be upset, but just how did the Franken 35 help us win elections? Don't lecture us. Lecture them.

[Demsrule86]

145. I feel what is done is done...and no good can come from this . Don't vote for her in a 20

primary. Other than that, let the voters in New York decide. We have way more important things to work on like winning an election in 18. I don't want you and others to lose sight of what is important. Franken is gone. I didn't like the way it was handled. My Senator Sherrod Brown also called on Franken to resign...didn't like that. But I am not about to call for a primary challenge for my Senator in the age of Trump over this matter. He is a good guy in general. I will say this people who beat this to death are only helping the GOP. It is what the right wing hoped for. I won't join people who will in the end hurt the Democratic Party and our election chances in this useless quest for revenge. And since Sen. Gillibrand is being vilified while others like Sen. Brown my guy are given a pass, I see a component of sexism in these attacks. I don't even like Sen. Gillibrand, but I dislike the way she is being treated. Someone here made an innuendo about Trump's remarks where he basically said Sen. Gillibrand gave him sexual favors for donations...she did not...and to find such a thing here shows this has gone way to far.

[Jakes Progress]

186. No one gets a pass.

I said the Franken 35. Gillibrand screwed the party and the people, let alone Al Franken. She wanted lead on this, so she gets the most heat. But all 35 showed themselves to be back-stabbing ambitionists or timid poll-followers or just politically inept. They all showed a lack of the quality we need for someone to lead the party.

It is not helping the GOP to chastise our elected officials for doing stupid and counter productive things. If we don't, they will continue to act stupidly. What helps the GOP is that they get a pass for behavior because they can say "See. Even the Democrats say that we are just alike."

The silly 35 knee-jerked their way into getting our best committee questioner tossed out and having his picture put up every time the media mentions weinstein. trump gets a walk. You have to let your elected members know that they screwed up and that there are consequences for that kind of bald ambition or just that kind of tone deaf behavior.

[Owl]

87. Absolutely! Its heartbreaking.

[SoCalMusicLover]

111. Well, We Still Have The Polite, "Do Not Disrupt SOTU" Democrats Like Pelosi

Franken was a rabble rouser. The Democrats in charge don't need someone like that.

[VOX]

114. Why is Republican Jeff Flake the only senator to speak in session against Trump?

His comparison of Trump to Stalin was apt. Yeah, he’s retiring and free to speak his mind. But who else can throw fire? Any Democrats out there care to step up? There should be some noise like that at least once per week.

Just this morning I was thinking, Goddamnit, I sure miss Al Franken’s voice in this MESS.

[oberliner]

116. Adam Schiff has been great

[VOX]

127. Yes he has!

He is genuinely a kind man, and comes on quietly and cogently. But he’s also the guy who will put in hours of his own time finding that *one* little discrepancy on the books.

Schiff is shining example of a hard-working, conscientious public servant. I wish we could clone him!

[scarletwoman]

119. Franken was my Senator. I will NEVER forgive Gillibrand.

I watched her exchange with Joy Behar on the View - and frankly, I just wanted to scream at Gillibrand: You stupid, vacuous, sanctimonious tool! Thanks a lot for doing the repug's dirty work for them!

Those of you who are not Minnesota DFLers have no idea how much our Senator Franken meant to us. He was our extraordinarily wonderful replacement for our deeply mourned, tragically lost Paul Wellstone, and what a struggle we went through to get him elected!

To those who want to minimize or poo-poo our pain - you just have no fucking idea...

[LakeArenal]

151. Some of the comments kill me...

That Franken supporters want someone's head on a stick... When in fact, the Senators exactly wanted Al's head on a stick.

Then when they cut out Franken, and created this great divide, they underestimated the blowback. So now, we the people are being divisive?

You folks in MN not given any say in it. Is it that much different than the "financial managers" the Repugs used to remove the elected official in struggling cities?

If you could get Al to run again, I think he'd win.

I had to turn Gilli off on the View. She sounded more like Megan McClump's friend than Joy Bahr's.

Just want you to know, scarlet, that many of us don't feel the pain as you do, but we sure understand and stand with you.

[WyLoochka]

120. Yes I knew I'd miss him but not THIS much

I think about him a lot and, like you, wish I could hear what he would have to say.
He was not only on point and a great questioner, he is a healer. His presence in the Senate was reassuring and at times soothing.

More convinced now that I will not ever be able to support the prime movers behind the railroad job.

[Puzzledtraveller]

122. There was a purge beginning October last year

The DNC thinks they can straddle the center line, and they don't want troublemakers. That says how dangerous and effective Franken was. IMO

[joet67]

123. He should just run again! He can have his say on the trail.

[PatrickforO]

126. He was sacrificed on the altar of ambition.

The #metoo cause is just. What happened to Franken was not. It is still bitter to me.

[mchill]

153. Yep

It felt like Kirsten was trying to get rid of her competition. Disgusting. Forever bitter here.

I hope Franken runs again.

[Trumpocalypse]

157. Who's ambition?

All these senators?

[PatrickforO]

184. I'm not going to split hairs. These people all piled on and all of them have ambitions.

Doesn't matter, though. What does matter is a decent man did not get due process. Period. I'm not 'mansplaining.' I'm not criticizing feminism. I'm not criticizing the #metoo movement because it is time for women to stand up.

But, EVERY SINGLE PERSON who is accused of something deserves due process. Every one. Franken did not get due process.

THAT is the point. That is the total point, the whole point. No due process. Because all these people in this picture you took the time to post didn't, for whatever reason, feel it necessary to take the time and make the effort to give Franken due process.

It was a right wing smear job from the start and WE FUCKED UP. Or these people in the pictures did. ALL OF THEM.

[Trumpocalypse]

185. True. Franken did not get due process.

But neither did Harvey Weinstein or Roger Ailes or Roy Moore or Kevin Spacey.

Due process is a legal consideration, not a political one.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

129. I thought you meant the silence of the steady stream of accusations.

Notice they stopped almost right after he announced his resignation from the Senate?

[Jakes Progress]

134. Gillibrand helped write the republican headlines

Now, whenever the media brings up #metoo, they show a splash of pictures with Franken right beside weinstein and laure and whatever other pervert hits the news. You know who they don't show - trump.

That is what Gillibrand did for the party. It gave the republicans cover and slimed a decent man. In our little group of Democrats, she used to place favorably when we discussed future candidates. She had five very strong supporters and approval of the rest of us. Now she is down to one embarrassed supporter who "forgives" her.

Don't even try it Kirsten. It will be embarrassing.

[Trumpocalypse]

154. Why is one person being singled out

when there was a whole group of them

This is beginning to sound very sexist.

[Jakes Progress]

187. Off your high horse.

All of the above showed stupidity and political ineptness. It would be sexist if Gillibrand got a pass because she is female.

She is the one who wanted the headline and lead on this. On Rachel, Hirono indicated that she and Gillibrand had discussed it with others, and they had planned on putting our a joint press release. She said that she got back to her office to find that in the meantime Gillibrand had dashed her press release out first. Hirono said she hurried hers out right a way then. They all wanted on the band wagon. A stupid band wagon that each of these were either jumping on to hide in the pack or were itching to take out a potential contender for the party's nomination. They all showed themselves to be political naifs, unaware of how they were being led and used.

They can be useful as Senators, as long as they have someone brighter and more politically aware leading them. But none deserve our nomination for the leader of our party.

[Trumpocalypse]

191. So you're stalking me through different threads now

I'm sure there is a rule against that.

[Jakes Progress]

196. Off your high ego trip.

I replied to your post. If you say the same thing in a variety of posts (you only say the same thing), you should expect to receive similar replies.

I reply to all posts I see that demean Al Franken and seek to shield Gillibrand from her error by trying to make it look like she didn't lead the charge.

I repeat. Your strategy is not working. Notice the number of DU'ers in the threads you jump on who are pissed about it. At least try another tack. Maybe say Gillibrand is sorry. Maybe admit error. Maybe try to rectify the damage don to the Democratic party. That would be refreshing. And unexpected.

[Trumpocalypse]

199. Sound like you are stalking me nt

[Jakes Progress]

203. On how many threads? Huh? Get over yourself.

Sounds like you are stalking Al Franken. (You seem not to have any sense of humor or context. So be aware that this is a joke.)

[markpkessinger]

137. And we can thank Kristen Gillibrand for doing Republicans' dirty work for them n/t

[Trumpocalypse]

156. And all the other Senators?

Interesting how the one senator being singled out is a woman.

[Honeycombe8]

175. +1. nt

[SHRED]

152. Gillibrand will never live this down

Rightly or wrongly she is now damaged goods politically.
Dumb move on her part and then going on The View and making it worse.

[Trumpocalypse]

155. What about the others?

[SHRED]

158. That's why I said "wrongly"

Some may find it unfair to single her out.

She was the first prominent Democratic leader to call for his resignation wasn't she?
Going in The View recently didn't help.

Do you think she isn't harmed and this will go away?
I'm not so sure.

[Trumpocalypse]

160. She is only harmed with those

who indulge in the cult of personality and who look for reasons to beat their chests in self righteous indignation about how the party betrayed them again.

[SHRED]

163. That's your characterization

I wouldn't describe the angst like that.

[Trumpocalypse]

164. When you put one single senator or person

ahead of all the others that is the definition of cult of personality.

[Jakes Progress]

188. Stop stumping for her.

Can't you see it isn't working.

Kirsten Gillibrand went out of her way to take the lead on this. She wanted the credit. Well. She got it. All of them showed dumbness and a lack of insight. But Gillibrand was obviously taking out the competition.

She should be grateful to remain a senator. She lacks the skills needed to lead the party as shown by her actions which so greatly benefitted the republicans and harmed the #me too movement when she chose to use it for political purposes.

Maybe she should just duck her head, do a really good job of serving the party and the people for a few terms. Then we can see.

As for a cult of personality, you seem to be very, very personal with her. You would do well to stop vilifying the people who admired Al Franken. It is not helping your cause.

[Trumpocalypse]

190. I'm not stumping for anyone.

But you seem to be obsessed with her.

[Jakes Progress]

197. You're the one who creeps in those posts

with portraits of all those who joined you in this debacle. This repeated (and repeated and repeated) effort to duck the blame for the debacle by saying "look at all the others" is shabby. Kirsten Gillibrand ran to the head of the pack (even skewering the other senators that joined her) by rushing out her statement instead of waiting for a joint announcement.

Just lay low. Attack republicans rather than Democrats. Do a good job. Do your job as senator. Support the eventual nominee. Then see what happens for your reputation. That would be my advice for Senator Gillibrand.

[Trumpocalypse]

200. I'm not the one attacking a Democratic senator

Sounds like an obsession to me.

[Jakes Progress]

204. Pot. Meet kettle.

Nice little dodge. Accuse your opponent of doing what you are guilty of. Trump uses that a lot.

Just what is your obsession with Gillibrand. Sounds very personal to you. Almost like you really, really know her. Or almost like it was a job to defend her online. Almost like that.

Try a different method.

[Trumpocalypse]

205. Never attacked any Senator

Show me where I have.

[Jakes Progress]

206. You are defending Gillibrand attacking a Senator.

And a very effective Democratic Senator at that.

However my post refers to your saying that I was "obsessed". You are the one who used the same post over and over to try to excuse Gillibrand. That sounds like obsession to me.

We can fix this. Do you support Gillibrand's attack on Al Franken? Do you think her actions there showed leadership quality? Do you think what she did was for the benefit of the party? Of the country? Do you think we are better off without Al Franken's questions in the Senate? In other words - did Gillibrand screw up?

[Trumpocalypse]

208. How do you define effective?

And it was several senators. Why are you singling out a woman?

[Jakes Progress]

209. As not being like Gillibrand.

Her actions were counterproductive.

Ahhhh. Now we're gonna accuse me of sexism. Actually, defending the senator who leapt out in front of all those who were talking about censuring Franken, and asking why she is being singled out is sexist. Why should she be allowed to be that aggressive against the party and that press hungry just because she is a woman. Women have every right to be just as greedy and self-absorbed as a man. Of course, then they get the credit or blame for what they choose to do.

You keep wanting to attack other senators while not answering whether you support Kirstin's actions. It is disingenuous of you to ignore the fact that I have, in this thread, repeatedly condemned all of those senators who were part of that stupid and inept action. I am not singling out Gillibrand. You are. You are the one who keeps bringing it up. Bring up the actions of one of those who acted just as stupidly, and I will have my say about them even though they didn't jump into the fray with such alacrity as Kirsten. She wanted the credit. Not she gets the result of that poorly thought out action.

Again. I'm not singling her out even though she wanted to be singled out. (She just thought it would work out differently.) You single her out every time you hit reply and then I reply. It kicks this thread back to the top where more people get to read and get pissed at her again. Her best bet is for this to just die and be gone. Leaping on this thread or others is just as counterproductive as her actions in the first place.

How come you haven't answered about how you feel about her actions toward her fellow senator, and about how you think this benefitted the party and the country?

[Trumpocalypse]

210. So only Gilibrand is a villan despite over 30 other Senators

calling for Franken to resign.

But if Gillibrand was the ringleader who got over 30 Senators to due her bidding, then it sounds like she is a very effective Senator.

Or maybe the measure of effectiveness is getting legislation passed: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2016/party-senate-democrat/bills-enacted-ti
So who is the most effective?

Or maybe it is who has voted to oppose Trump the most: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/25/kirsten-gillibrand-has-voted-against-almost-all-of-donald-trumps-nominees-2020-anyone/?utm_term=.d694d2ab4a03
So is the most effective?

Singling out one female Senator to demonize is sexist and canonizing another is just cult of personality thinking. There were more people involved and bigger considerations.

[Jakes Progress]

212. You are not helping Gillibrand.

You post the same thing over and over and over and over. Then you say she is the only one condemned, proving you are either not reading my posts or are being intellectually dishonest about them. You display the same disregard for truthfulness that Gillibrand (and her misled followers) did.

So all you want is someone who can get other to follow them? You don't care what they do or what they lead people to do, even if it causes the party to lose members and the country to lose a progressive voice? You must have loved reagan.

It is nice that you finally admit that Gillibrand was the ringleader in the expulsion of Al Franken.

If she is so effective, why hasn't she called for an investigation into the sexual predations of trump? She went after Franken, but why doesn't she call for trump to be investigated. The Senate can do that. Let's see you lead them to actually do something that will help the country.

So stop being so disingenuous by calling me sexist for calling out Gillibrand. She called herself out. As you say in your post, she was the ringleader. Now that it turns out she screwed up, she can't take the heat and wants to dump blame on those you say she led. Not the kind of leader I want. (For the fourth time and for the record, I don't want any of the others that knee-jerked into that stupid republican trick as a leader. Not that you will admit that I have said that many times. It conflicts with your programed response.)

And it is just silly and pathetic that you seemed to have signed on and leapt into the DU fray just to defend Gillibrand and then claim that others are involved in a personality cult. You support her as if you are her (or a staff member). That is what I call personality thinking.

Again. I thank you for kicking this thread and the important message of the OP back to the top of the page.

[Trumpocalypse]

213. You didn't answer my question.

Exactly how do you define effective?

[Jakes Progress]

214. You haven't answered even one of my questions.

Again. You want to castigate someone for doing exactly what you do. So like Gillibrand.

Again. You seem to not read my posts. You act like a press office with a message to get out regardless of the dialogue.

Again. You just seem oblivious to the fact that Democrats hold Gillibrand responsible for this travesty, this nastiness, this inept political move. The hold her responsible because she rushed into take the credit, then chicken-shitted out when it didn't garner her the praise she so stupidly thought it would give her.

Again. You continue a thread, bumping it to the top with your every post, that condemns your hero. This thread represents the animosity of the Democratic rank and file for the political stupidity that Gillibrand and her "followers" committed. Totally out of touch with the base of the Democratic party. Totally vested in political advancement at the expense of any sense of decency and morality. Totally in thrall to the polls, which were obviously wrong. (Another sign of political inexperience or leadership.) No one is reading what we are writing. But they are reading the OP and the many posts agreeing with the position that Franken was screwed by a group of inept politicians following the lead of an more inept politician.

Again. You miss the point that the only way out of this is to lay low. Do something beneficial or wise or effective as a Democrat. Hope that it blows over eventually. Overtime the incident is brought up Democrats will seethe with the wrongness of the actions of the inept gang.

(Of course the senator could apologize to Al Franken. Could admit screwing up. Could ask for forgiveness. But Gillibrand admitting error is about as likely as trump doing so.)

[Trumpocalypse]

215. Still waiting for an answer to my question

How do you define effective?

[Honeycombe8]

202. I missed that...her appearance on The View.

I'll have to look for it on Youtube. It was bad, I guess.

The thing is...most people had never heard of her before. Then the first time they hear of her, it's in connection with this. First impressions and all that.

[leftstreet]

159. DURec

[Beaverhausen]

165. I see plenty of great Dem Senators getting out on TV to speak

Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Chris Murphy, Chris Coons and Mark Warner to name a few.

I honestly don't recall Franken being that visible on TV...not anymore than any of the others.

[Trumpocalypse]

218. Very true

Franken was a great voice in many ways. He took on Jeff Sessions and proved him a liar. Unfortunately he was rapidly becoming a political liability.

[dlwickham]

179. no

[JHan]

201. no I don't feel it,

[laserhaas]

207. I suggested Franken run for Senate - again:Poll says YES

Let the voters decide

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10184385

[Scurrilous]

211. What a load of @#$%.

[Adrahil]

216. Well for sure, I haven't heard a peer from his successor. NT