Ok, I'm not sure where I come down on the Gillibrand vs. Franken thing.

[Ken Burch]

That's why I've pretty much said nothing about it until now.

I was torn between the idea of letting the Ethics Committee investigate the allegations regarding AL, on the one hand, and the imperative of believing victims of sexual harassment and abuse on the other.

But last night, while I still think AL probably should have resigned once more than one accuser came forward, Gillibrand lost me when she defended her insistence on pushing for Franken's resignation as necessary to defend her "right to speak out".

Her right to speak out?

It would be one thing to say that the victims of any form of sexual harassment or abuse have a right to speak out, but HER right to speak out, not as a person who herself has been a victim-to anyone's public knowledge-but to insist that her only choices were to either insist that AL resign or to be silent?

Why would she make THIS, of all possible things, about her?

Shouldn't she be centering those making the allegations, rather than her own right to speak?

And was there no way to center those making the allegations rather than pushing for AL to resign immediately?

I could respect it if she had said "AL should go because what matters is believing victims".

But she didn't seem to do that...did she?

AL was almost going to end up resigning anyway, so was Gillibrand apparent insistence on making this about herself really worth making him go maybe four or five months earlier than he otherwise would have gone?

I'm still conflicted on this one, but much less sympathetic to Gillibrand's own position on the matter than I would have been before Sunday night.

[hueymahl]

1. I still stand with Al

Modern day witch hunt.

We had a lot of Democrats let us down who should have known better.

[dragonlady]

3. Still disappointed in Tammy Baldwin

She's been excellent as a senator but seriously abused her authority, as so many Democrats did when they pushed Al Franken out on such flimsy, unproved accusations.

[milestogo]

43. Yeah, she couldn't wait to throw him under the bus

and give away donations he gave to her as if they were contaminated. I'm really disappointed in her for that.

[Demsrule86]

81. Let's be fair. Franken could have refused to resign and fought on...he chose not to. I for one don't

consider this important enough to risk 18 or 20...he is one guy. Now we just need to make the seat safe for Democrats.

[Jakes Progress]

90. Lots wrong here.

First of all, it wasn't fair. Now Al's picture goes up on the CNN screen with weinstein, lauer, and moore. Not trump, but Franken gets put in that company every time his name is brought up, every time they nail another sleaze. How is that fair?

Second. Al bent to pressure from 30 of his colleagues. These are people with whom he worked for years. Imagine the blow when they all turned on him. None of their motives were good. They just ate him up for a press release. It was a stupid move that played right into the hands of the breitbart gang that made it up. Al said he would welcome an investigation. His accuser, tweeden, gulped and said she forgave Al and that she didn't want an investigation. The right wing machine only wanted to tarnish a senator that was so effectively going after trump and sessions. It was beyond their wildest dreams that Democrats would actually get rid of him. After their backstabbing, how could Al work with these former colleagues? They didn't call for an investigation; they said he was dead to them and should leave. It was a stupid move that did no good for anything Democrats are supposed to stand for.

Third. He is not just one guy. Would you say that Obama is just one guy, that anybody could do the job he did? Would you say that Hillary was just one woman and any woman could do what she did? Some people are better at what they do than others.

Fourth. Al's was a safe seat. Now it isn't.

Also notice that the string of accusations died the minute he resigned. With the real oppressors, the list just grows.

Democrats got had. The Democrats who took part in this do not deserve to be considered for party leadership positions. Let them stay in office and take marching orders from leaders who don't grab headlines at the expense of the party, who don't fall for republican tricks, and who are just smarter and more prepared to lead.

[Demsrule86]

91. Franken was a Senator so it is not the same as if it was Pres. Obama. While he was a

great Senators, I think we will be fine...and if we blow up our chances to take the House and the Senate over this...what good does it do? Time to move on. He did choose to resign...and I would not have done so. Many Dems regretted their 'piling' on and had he given people more time...I think they would have rallied around him.

[Jakes Progress]

103. So any senator is as good as any other?

How does not choosing one of the thirty to be our nominee in 2020 have anything to do with not winning the House or Senate in 2018?

One expression I don't like is "time to move on". That's what people who have done bad things want everyone to do. You learn nothing and you teach nothing by just moving on. These senators screwed up. They screwed the party. And they aided the republicans. You don't move on from that. You examine it. You let the ones who messed up know that we are watching and that they have best learn something from their dumbassery. Otherwise, it will happen again and again.

Another reason not to just move on, is to make sure that people remember those who either piled on for a quick headline at the expense of the party or for chance to remove a possible rival for advancement. We need to remember who those people are and not nominate them to lead our party. They are not leaders. They need a leader.

And no. Al didn't choose to resign. He was told to do so by most of his colleagues. You tell me what you think the working conditions would be in the Senate Democratic caucus with a battle between Al and them? Al did the thing for the party that needed to be done once Gillibrand et al. fell for the stupid republican trick. He knew they weren't going to do the right thing. They weren't going to admit to being used. So he ate it for the party.

No. Resigning wasn't his choice. It was just the only option that let the Senate Democratic caucus not spend months feeding on each other. He's the only hero in this stupid debacle.

So. Each state with one of the politically inept senators can keep them. That's their choice and a better one that letting a republican weasel have a shot. But we don't need that kind of gullible person as our nominee in 2020.

[Demsrule86]

106. In order to get a majority...we need warm bodies...any Democratic Senator will suffice.

If we don't win in 18 and 20, we are completely fucked. This is a distraction. Franken is gone. He won't run for Governor or the presidency. It is over. Let's move on. Consider if we get the Senate we stop Trump's judicial nominees...think about that.

[Jakes Progress]

107. Use a calendar.

In 2018, there is no presidential election. Telling Gillibrand that we don't want her for president has no effect on 2018 elections. It won't harm 2020 either. She would be a poor choice to lead a ticket. As would any of the politically inept who took part in that stupid debacle. Are you saying that there are not intelligent, savvy Democrats who can run for president?

And yes, we are completely fucked as long as we think any Democrat will do. Suppose Sarah Palin put a D by her name and ran. Here in Texas we used to have a whole legislature filled with bigots and reactionaries with D's by their name. If the party doesn't stand for anything but winning, why would anyone vote for one over the other except for selfish reasons. As a white male, most of what I vote for works against me financially. If I didn't care what a party stood for, the republicans would do better for me. Why do you want too stop trump's judicial nominees if you don't care what the party means?

This is not a distraction. This is what elections are about.

And again you ask to just move on. Should we move on from racism. Tell all of the black people to just forget about all those police shootings. And Viet Nam. Just don't think about it. It is too distracting. So move on forget it.

We do not agree on this. You are making a decision to ignore candidate's actions. Screw that. The republicans did that and got trump. I bet they said that they should just move on from each of trump's abominations. Just move on, they said. Just think what we can get if we don't care what we get.

[Demsrule86]

110. It dampens the vote...Gillibrand is one person...she is not my senator nor yours if I remember

correctly. She was also not the only one that did that...my guy Sherrod Brown is up for reelection in 18. As for Democrats...I doubt a racist Democrat could win a primary... but this particular year, we are fucked if we don't win and the same is true in 20...this party won't stand for anything if we don't win...consider that we have the best platform ever...and not a snowball's chances in implementing it. I would vote for Satan himself this year is there was a D next to his name because to allow Trump unfettered access to our government is political suicide...nice opinion you have of Dems anyway...I know no Dem who is racist. And if we don't win in 18 and 20..the GOP will have the courts and then liberalism is dead for a generation. Vote for the Democrat as if your life depends on it because it does...much of what you said seems to me to be one of the reasons we lost in 16. That some Democrats just are not good enough to vote for...well as we watch Dreamers deported which is likely to happen think about that for a minute.

Elections have consequences. When you vote for a Democrat, you are voting for a democratic agenda even if the person you vote for does not agree with every aspect of it. if you vote Republican, third party or sit home you are voting for a republican agenda. Again they have control so whether they are moderate or hard core, they support Republican agenda. If you primary a sitting Democrat and then lose the seat...a Republican is put into office. Time to consider that a vote for any Democrat is the way forward...and it always was.

[Jakes Progress]

111. You certainly have an agenda.

The fact that it has nothing to do with this thread doesn't persuade you to read the posts and actually reply to them. You just spout the same string of obvious banalities and babble on.

Show me anywhere I (or for that fact others in this thread) have advocated not voting for a Democrat. You rant on about such obvious things as "vote for Democrats as if you life depends on it" and "elections have consequences". Show me where you find anything I or others have said that indicates we disagree with such platitudes. I have voted for Democrats for over 50 years. I have voted in every election since I was 18. So your rant, while it might fit in a general forum on another site, is just pointless in this one on Democratic Underground. You plead with us not to vote for a republican. Who said they wanted to vote for a republican? That is an insulting comment on DU. You are acting like some fervent preacher at a teetotaler convention preaching the evils of demon rum. Do you just like to read your rant in print? How about addressing the issues? Nothing in your posts has anything to do with the point of the OP or the myriad of solid DU members who disagree with your siding with an attack on Franken.

So take your holier than thou shit and shove it. You are lecturing lifelong Democrats and Union organizers on how they should vote. All while defending the group of senators who threw a safe Democratic seat into peril. The hypocrisy is palpable.

[Demsrule86]

112. I have read the threads...I don't understand your point...Franken is gone nothing you do or say will

change that. The entire point of my 'rant' as you call it was to point out that Franken is gone and complaining endlessly about it only divides us and we have an election in nine months...and we need to win...we need to vote for every Democrat period. In 16 that didn't happen. The purity crowd (not saying you) turned up their nose at Clinton and now we have Trump.

I reread my previous post and see no fault in my 'rant' as you call it. The House is on fire...and we need to unite and beat the tar out of the Republicans. Oh dear, you have discovered my agenda...I want Democrats to win this November and in 20...guilty as charged. Clearly I am on the wrong site...oh wait...we elect Democrats...nope right site. Now I have nothing more to say on this matter. I intend to trash any thread with the word Franken in it or Gillibrand (unless it is in regards to a different matter). Have a nice evening. I am
'fired up and ready to go'...and intend to stay that way.

[Jakes Progress]

113. How saintly of you. Thanks for telling DU how important it is to vote Democratic.

I see you just don't get it. Not your fault. Some can. Others can't.

Your agenda it to be obvious. How about I jump on a thread about NAFTA or Climate Change where rant to anyone who posts that they don't understand how bad trump is. They reply that they are talking about the bad climate legislation, then I tear my hair and ask why they want to help elect trump. They say they don't know where that came from, so I jump up and down and lecture them about how trump is a bad president and they need to know that.

That is you. As I said though. You don't get it. But you seem to be enjoying how smart you are with all the breaking news that we need to win elections and that we need to vote. How about I tell you that you need to stop smoking and stop beating children, that those things are bad.

Democrats winning in November has nothing - nothing to do with Gillibrand's dumb move and not rewarding her for putting a Democratic Senate seat up for grabs and depriving us of an intelligent voice. (I know, I know. To you any Democrat is as good as any other. Why should we even vote in primaries?) You whine about dividing Democrats and then swear to "trash any thread with the work Franken in it." Irony seems to be lost on you.

I'm glad you vote Democratic. Now show up in the Fall. Stuff envelopes. Get donuts. Help deliver yard signs. But please don't speak to people who are planning to vote Democratic. You will only piss them off with your holier than thou rants and maybe lose us some votes. Stay "fired up" to vote and help. But notice the effect you are having on people when you start demanding that people do what they are already doing.

[Hortensis]

78. Noted. As for Ken's OP, I feel sure his answer lies in posting

at all. The message is clear enough to me, anyway.

Btw, good news! A Democratic (Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party) candidate was just elected to the Minnesota state senate yesterday. Her strong record suggests she's a good moderate liberal, reflecting her district's constituency, with lots of good, practical experience.

KARLA BIGHAM:

[hueymahl]

84. Pulling for Karla!

Did not know about her - just read up a little - sounds a like a great person - hope she is a success!!

[Hortensis]

85. Yes, she really sounds like one of the good people we want to keep

in government, and in this case, promote to greater responsibilities.

[Ken Burch]

109. Glad that she won, but any Dem could have won there with a strong campaign.

We won't build a Democratic wave in '18 if we restrict nominations in winnable seats to moderates-limiting it to moderates means reducing the whole campaign to "it's enough to stop T___p". Voters won't elect us just to stop him. We need to be for change that affects their lives in a positive and perceivable way.

We can't just restrict progressive candidates to state legislative seats, for cryin' out loud-we can't ONLY nominate progressives in races that don't matter. And there's no reason to assume the voters want us to do that.

Why couldn't you leave it at just praising Karla's win?

BTW, if your first line in that post was meant as some sort of a swipe at me, It was uncalled for. I don't post out of some pathetic desire for personal attention, my OP did no harm, and my presence on this board is just as legitimate as yours is.

MY OP called out Gillibrand for her motivations. Why would that bother you?

[NurseJackie]

2. I stand with Al.

But, hey! Big congrats to Gillibrand for successfully picking the scabs and pouring salt into political wounds that were just starting to heal. The whole thing seems very poorly times and suspiciously self-serving to me. I'm not convinced that she's "presidential material" and I hope she avoids seeking our party's nomination.

These are my opinions that question and characterize her timing, wisdom and motivation. Nothing said here is a personal attack.





PS:

[Me.]

11. I Stand With You Standing With Al

[tblue37]

15. I am convinced she is not presidential material. nt

[TheDebbieDee]

31. Sen Gillibrand panicked and threw Sen Franken

Under the bus!

[img][/img]


She convinced me that she is not Presidential material...

[RandomAccess]

42. My prediction: If she decides to run in 2020, she'll be that year's

equivalent of the hated-by-some-on-the-left Hillary Clinton.

I hope to God she doesn't run. I agree with you entirely that she's not presidential material.

[regnaD kciN]

55. My suspicion is that she'll run as the "#MeToo candidate"...

...and paint all opposing her (especially males) as tacit supporters of sexual abuse.

It probably won't be enough to win her the nomination, but she'll likely do better than expected, and be in a solid position for the VP nod (should a male candidate get the nomination).

[ucrdem]

64. Don't forget that Conyers was also tossed out with that week's scraps.

Somebody had a good week and it wasn't us. The crazy part is that neither was accused by their constituents and neither's constituents demanded their resignations. But someone did.

[RandomAccess]

65. The allegations against Conyers were far more credible, more like

those against Roy Moore in terms of supporting documentation. So I can't agree with your sentiment here.

[ucrdem]

68. No prob, not arguing, but the fact is that staffers are different from constituents

and the staffer making the allegations hired a celebrity lawyer (Lisa Bloom) who made sure they got splashed around in the same news cycle as Moore's. They did and Conyers resigned. But not because his constituents asked him to.

[Raster]

4. I stand with Al.

"Gillibrand... defended her insistence on pushing for Franken's resignation as necessary to defend her "right to speak out"."

BULLSHIT.

Gillibrand though she was going to get political points furthering her political aspirations by railroading Senator Franken. I think not, and frankly, don't think Gillibrand still realizes just what a pile of shit (of her own making) she has stepped in.

[barbtries]

19. very cynical.

lot of disappointment - i was heartbroken. i think he was railroaded and was one of the best we had. i'm working on forgiving all of the democrats who piled on Franken.

[Ken Burch]

25. I was going on what she said on 60 Minutes

When the interviewer asked why she felt it couldn't be left to the Ethics Committee, asked what was the rush, Gillibrand responded by saying "what about my right to speak out?"

She probably did think she was going to get political points on this as well.

[RandomAccess]

44. That's simply grotesque

in my view.

Her "right to speak out" shouldn't equal railroading a colleague out of office.

[Ken Burch]

46. Agreed.

n/t.

[brush]

59. K&R. I agree. "her right to speak out"...I've never heard such blatant, self-serving bullshit...

in all my life.

You can't get anymore self-serving than to be so clueless as to think and actually say out loud that the Franken issue was all about her right to speak out and not about the "alleged victims".

If she hadn't been so anxious to find an issue to run on in 2020 she wouldn't have been so gullible in falling for the repug, hit job on Senator Franken.

Gullible, ambitious and too dumb to realized she stepped in a hole of her own making as she doubled down and kept digging her "right to speak out" hole.

Hope she keeps it up until it's deep enough to bury her campaign as we don't need another divisive campaign in 2020 like we had in 2016.

[Jarqui]

101. So do I though it may be a futile stand in terms of him returning to running for office

I was interested in Gillibrand as a potential leader.

I lost my interest with how she handled Franken's circumstances. Remember during the primary debates when Obama tried to help Bill Richardson?

Rigor mortis is setting in on that interest with her nonsense on her "right to speak out". That stomped on Franken's right to due process where everything got the scrutiny it deserved via the ethics committee based upon the record of how the man had conducted himself for decades and some of the suspicious facts around the claims - which were numerous.

I was more interested in Al Franken as a leader. But somewhere in the GOP back rooms, they're laughing at Gillibrand for being a sucker and doing their dirty business for them.

[doc03]

5. Look at Al's first accuser, that was nothing but a right-wing

smear job because he called Sessions a liar. We have a so called president that grabs women by the p---- and
brags about it. Al pretended to touch the lady's breast in a gag photo and wasn't she pretending to be asleep?

[happy feet]

8. I stand with Al

Agreed. Gillibrand accepted right wing hit job without allowing for hearings. Ridiculous. I always thought this was about her and her presidential ambitions.

[dalton99a]

6. I don't recall Franken putting duct tape on her mouth

or otherwise inhibiting/abridging her right to speak

[Ken Burch]

26. I don't either.

n/t.

[sdfernando]

7. I'm not conflicted one bit.

Gilibrand didn't afford Franken Due Process....Full Stop, Period, end of discussion.

[OnDoutside]

10. +1000

[enough]

53. That's it. NT

[spanone]

9. Senator Franken was forced out of office by his Democratic colleagues....

imho

[Guilded Lilly]

12. Still with Al.

[leftstreet]

13. Me me me me me me me

ugh



DURec

[Ken Burch]

27. Yes, that's what she seems to have been about.

n/t.

[USALiberal]

20. Wow, tacky, self delete. nt

[flamingdem]

32. Wow

Bossy today huh?

[msongs]

16. for a yr after trump became prez she was silent on his alleged behaviors (based on a google search)

yet the allegations against franken were barely dry when she was calling a public press conference demanding he resign

[USALiberal]

17. She had ONE motive, make a name for herself! nt

[Gidney N Cloyd]

18. Gillibrand is the Democratic Dan Quayle.

She has really shitty political instincts, is slow on her feet, has no sense of irony, and yet eats up her own publicity.

[Demsrule86]

21. I wa unhappy with Gillibrand and others who were involved but it is over. Time to move on. We can't

change it now.

[CTyankee]

22. Thank you!

I am so over this whole thing! We have to move on, folks! You are picking at a scab and it's not going to do us one bit of good.

For god's sake, just get over it. We have important work to do. Al was a victim of his time in office and the politics of sexual harassment.

Let's just focus on getting repukes out of office in 2018 and 2020. We are wasting our time to constantly revisit this now dead issue.

The GOP must love our angst...

[Ken Burch]

24. Wasn't meaning to pick at a scab and largely agree with you.

n/t.

[Demsrule86]

79. I am fine with it. It is what it is. I liked Franken and miss him...but he is one guy. We have

bigger fish to fry in 18 and 20.

[Demsrule86]

73. This sort of reaction is everything the GOP hoped for.

[Ken Burch]

23. OK. That seems prudent.

Just responding to what I saw Sunday night, which put Gillibrand's actions in a different, more disturbing light.

Probably cost her any shot at the presidency, so there's that.

[Demsrule86]

92. I agree about the presidency. I wouldn't vote for her in a primary. But in a general I would

vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is including Gillibrand should she win. Some who don't live in the state want to fund a primary for her senate seat...madness.

[enough]

54. Agree, unless she wants to keep milking it, which it seems she does. NT

[Demsrule86]

75. To be fair, she is asked about it constantly. I think she should change the subject but she is

asked all the time...and she does seem a bit defensive about it.

[MrsMatt]

104. Yes, we'll just take up fucking knitting

Don't think we'll ever forget.

[Demsrule86]

105. And what is the purpose of 'never forgetting' It is a waste of time and energy. Let's focus on

stopping Trump. We need to keep the Minnesota seat and work to take the Senate and the House.

[lark]

28. All I will say is I stand with Al and for the truth, not railroading for personal gain.

Gillibrand - well, I can't say anything about her as it might offend some of her fans.

[sinkingfeeling]

29. I stand with the Honorable Senator Al Franken.

[bettyellen]

30. I imagine there was some behind the scenes talk and expectations that the Franken thing would never

end if he didn’t resign. I think they’d have piled on more anonymous allegations and found plenty of objectionable stuff from his comedy years and they thought it was a losing battle. Which sucks because an ethics investigation could have been an object lesson as to what we should expect happen to many in the GOP.

That’s said, yeah I think she is making herself a name for it. And my gut says Franken was a harmless doofus, and I don’t trust the anonymous accusers any more than I do the USO woman. Sadly, the press didn’t report her pandering to the Trump family and RW media contacts. It sucks all around, and I’m not her fan. Same with how she used the Clintons and bit them on he ass when she was done. Don’t like that.

[Ken Burch]

35. She's clearly a piece of work.

[bettyellen]

38. Ill admit to clear Al Franken bias but its because I think he is such a great communicator and has

great judgement. I’m afraid they’re going to shamelessly use sexual misconduct against us and ignore the pedophiles and women beaters among their own. They’ve been really good at that so far.

[Ken Burch]

63. True.

n/t.

[bettyellen]

66. The me too thing is causing lots of arguements among women as well- as to

you must “believe women” and whether to equate legal but fairly shitty behavior w assault or rape. I think the RW assholes are really trying to muddy the waters to cause this strife among lefties- but also exploit those who have a “zero tolerance” stance toward this behavior and 100% believe women and hence throw Franken out with rapists and those who threaten women in the workplace.
To me it is so important that workplace harassment be curbed- and sex crimes be prosecuted - becasue they have not in most cases. Right now, talking about unwanted hugs, and entertaining lRW hacks who lie is not helping- and I feel that is by design.

[Demsrule86]

93. I am upset with some of the me too stuff...as a person who was violently attacked...

I can tell you, there is a difference than a guy grabbing your boob in a bar...jerkish behavior but not rape.

[bettyellen]

94. Okay- grabbing you is assault. But not as bad as assault from coworkers or bosses- that disrupt your

Life, and ability to support yourself. I think perhaps there should be more ability to see these things on a scale. And they threw out the scale for Franken, who was being paid to make sexy jokes at the time.

Lost in all this are the millions of women threatened and intimidated at school and in the workplace by men that hold their futures in their hands. That pisses me off, you can’t truly fix society until women parity and this is a
majoe factor impeding us.

[Demsrule86]

98. Grabbing a person's butt is not assault and unless you are a minority...you will never be prosecuted

for it in most states...it muddies the water for victims of assault. Sure lots of women are intimidated as you say...but so are others. You cannot legalize morality and shouldn't try. As more women enter the workplace as bosses and as college progressors, it changes. My daughter had a much easier time than I did. The Me Too movement will be selectively used against some too...consider those that don't like interracial couples or gay couples...we have to be very careful with this...it could cause great harm. I was only half way joking about prosecuting minorities in my opening sentence. It could happen.

[bettyellen]

100. Actually I think it is battery- which is a crime. And yes, its hard to prosecute one instance of it

But if you report it, and it happens again they tend to take in more seriously. What’s happening now is that it is still very hard to have more harmful crimes prosecuted.

And I hope you aren’t finding humor in prosecuting minorities- you know men were hanged for looking at white women just 60 years ago? Nothing to joke about.

[msdogi]

33. She is way ahead of herself

Her apparent perception of her importance and strength isn't mine.
I think she used Al to play holier than them, and our party lost a truly great Senator

[panader0]

34. After tRump made his tweet about due process,

Gillibrand said she wanted tRump to have due process for accusations against him.
Not so much for Sen. Franken I guess.

[NanceGreggs]

36. Her immediate reaction ...

... to Franken's situation was to make it all about herself.

"I could respect it if she had said "AL should go because what matters is believing victims."

No. What matters is getting at the truth behind such allegations, and not automatically assuming that every woman who levels such accusations is telling the truth.

It was obvious that Franken was set-up by RW operatives, and Gillibrand sought to advance her own career by jumping on their bandwagon.

The end result is that Gillibrand has now exposed herself as a self-serving politician who will throw a colleague under the bus, if she thinks it will further her own political ambitions.

[Ken Burch]

37. Ambitions she has probably destroyed now, as it happened.

Thanks for your post.

[NanceGreggs]

40. And that's the great irony.

She threw the dice, and wound up losing everything she'd hope to gain.

[regnaD kciN]

58. I doubt it...

She may have lost a lot of support here on DU, but I'm sure that's more than compensated for by those who see her as a champion of the #BelieveAllWomen movement.

[Nevernose]

39. We dont know who the victims are

For one thing.

We had a woman who admitted her first story was false.
We had a Republican activist.
We had a woman who specifically claims that she was NOT sexually harassed, but Al Franken unknowingly made her feel fat and therefore the accusations must be true. She said this live on CNN and managed to keep a straight face.
We had a woman claiming that Al Franken WANTED to kiss her, but only SECRETLY wanted to and never actually kissed her.
We also have a second woman whose sexual harassment claim consists entirely of “the first time we met, Al Franken did NOT kiss me and then paraphrased Trump’s Access Hollywood tape.”

Most were anonymous. None of the anonymous accusers went through mainstream media: two separate women just coincidentally contacted the same HuffPo blogger, and a third contacted a blogger at Jezebel who (also coincidentally) has a history of falling for rape hoaxes.

So as far as I’m concerned, there aren’t any Al Franken accusers. If it weren’t so serious a topic, it would sound like a late 70s, Franken-written SNL skit.

[NanceGreggs]

45. Well said!

"So as far as I’m concerned, there aren’t any Al Franken accusers."

My thoughts exactly.

[ProudLib72]

49. You're leaving out Hannity. It's big mistake IMHO to do so.

[Mandos the Judge]

82. You forgot...

You forgot the anonymous accuser who claimed Franken groped Arianna Huffington during a photoshoot. Of course, that was immediately shot down by Huffington herself, but it really emphasizes the funky sulphuric Roger Stone smell surrounding the whole sordid affair.

[writerJT]

41. Gillibrand.

Franken did himself in.

Instead of fighting to clear his name, instead of letting this go to the Ethics Committee, he chose a different path.

He embarked upon a strategy of incessant apologizing and repeatedly telling everyone how “ashamed” he was.

“Sorry.” “Ashamed.” Over and over and over, nearly to the point of groveling.

He went this route quickly and it was over for him just as quickly, only a matter of time until he was gone. Whatever his colleagues did after that was set in motion by Franken himself.

For whatever reason, he decided to put himself in the weakest possible position when the allegations came forward. He gave himself absolutely no chance to stay and fight and clear his name. None.

We have another Democrat in his seat, and from all I’ve read about her, she should be a great Senator.

It’s a shame that Franken, who was always a tough and effective fighter when it came to policy and nominations, didn’t give himself that same fighting effort. He simply surrendered out of the gate.

[LakeArenal]

47. Say what you want,,..

Franken remained respectfully quiet assuming he would get a requested ethics investigation. What you see as weakness, I see as the correct procedure. If he would have Lawyered up or made a big speech, that would have impressed you?
Al a tough fighter when in battle; maybe not when blindsided by his colleagues when told they were basically going to shun him if he stayed?
Incessant apologizing? I missed that.

You see what you see. I see what I see.

If Gilli wants folks to move on, she should at least quit blatantly double and tipling down on her own wrong move.

Maybe she should get over her blunder.

[writerJT]

51. Maybe you did miss it.

But that’s where things started going wrong for him.

If you haven’t seen this example of what I’m talking about, it’s worth a watch.

[Egnever]

88. so the lesson then is

What Gillibrand is supposedly fighting for would be detrimental to any innocent person. Al Franken tried to show respect to his accusers and "hear them". Which is supposedly what Gilibrand wants.

Clearly you prefer the old model instead of lawyering up and calling the accusers liars.

Seems that is the way to handle these things guilty or not. Also seems counter to the message we are supposed to be hearing that victims should be heard.

[ProudLib72]

50. Ok, we know that Gillibrand is only in it for Gillibrand

What are we supposed to do about it, primary her? Write our senators about how disgusted we are with her and hope they don't take any more of her cues? Ask her to step down?

I agree with you. I was mad as hell when it went down, and, now that you've brought it up again, I'm pissed once more. But I genuinely want to know what is an effective way to deal with this situation that will not reflect badly on the party as a whole nine months away from the most important election in American history.

[Ken Burch]

62. It's exceptionally challenging to primary anyone in New York.

As I understand it, challengers have to gather an unusually large number of signatures to make the primary ballot and there are lawyers all over New York city and state who specialize in getting those signatures thrown out and thus barring primary challengers from the ballot.

It can be done, but it's damn difficult.

And I'm not sure who the challenger would be.

It would need to be a woman filing against her, and I don't know who has the stature in NY state politics to pull it off.

[ProudLib72]

69. So what do we do then?

Some people have let it go and tried to forget. If I could be sure that she wouldn't try something like this again, then I could let it go, too, but I'm not sure she won't try again.

What really irks me about the Franken debacle is that senators joined her when they should have held back. It was weird to say the least, but it always seemed to me they thought riding the rising tide of the MeToo movement might prove a winning strategy. That wasn't necessarily wrong, but they were impetuous. If they learned their lesson and will become circumspect the next time, then I will gladly let it go.

[Ken Burch]

71. I'd focus on making sure she doesn't get nominated if she runs in '20.

And in the short-term, maybe a petition campaign in NY calling on her not to run for re-election that year either. Embarassing her with the fact of hundreds of thousands of people putting their names to a demand that she not run again might make her fold, though I can't say that for sure.

If the primary route is chosen(it might be an alternative to try to nominate a progressive feminist challenger on the Working Families Party line) it would be crucial to have excellent lawyers to defend the nominating petitions when Gillibrand tries to get them thrown out, and to make sure there is a DAMN strong candidate in place to take the fight to her.

[Jakes Progress]

108. Agree. Let her stay in the Senate, but

her actions in this have disqualified her for party leadership.

If New York Democrats want her, that is their choice. But anyone so politically inept and/or so gullible shouldn't be allowed the keys.

[KPN]

83. Don't vote for her in 2020 Presidential primary -- if she runs (which looks more and more

daunting with all of her mis-steps).

[regnaD kciN]

52. Some people think #BelieveAllWomen means accusers need to be taken seriously and not brushed-off...

...while others, from my experience, take it quite literally: that any allegations of sexual assault or harassment made by a woman against a man must be believed, period. (I've been told that "no woman would ever make a false accusation on such a matter," followed, unironically, by being lectured by the same speaker that I wasn't allowed to bring up cases where it's been clearly established that a false accusation was made -- including a later admission by the accuser herself -- because the number of such cases is so tiny that they don't count, and thus even mentioning them is being misogynistic and pro-abuse.) If you take the second of these options, then there really is no need for due process...a woman, or several women, made the allegation, and thus the charges are true.

[BootinUp]

56. Can you try explaining your conundrum again?

[Ken Burch]

67. I was torn between wondering if AL was getting a fair shake about all of this...

and my deeply-held belief that women claiming to have been sexually harassed or assaulted should be given the benefit of the doubt.

And it disturbed me that more than one woman was making allegations about AL-I could credit one accuser as potentially a set-up, but more than one seemed harder to discount.

At the same time, I wasn't sure I could trust Gillibrand' motivations here-and what she said last night makes my suspicions about that seem far more justified. Yet it seemed decisive when all the women Democratic senators weighed in

Yet now I have to ask...were THEY sure or did Gillibrand somehow hardball them into calling for AL to resign?

These are some of the things I wrestled with.

[Demsrule86]

95. I think that Franken got a raw deal...I do. But what can we do about it...as for believing the

women...two of his accusers were right wing trolls...friends of Hannity in fact. The others were anonymous. I do not consider anonymous accusers credible. I think the Me Too movement is gotten out of hand and waters down the serious issue of rape. We can't even get rape kits processed. Workplace sexual misconduct is dealt with in civil court. Private conduct can not be adjudicated by the courts unless it rises to the level of assault in my opinion. The case that turned me against this was the guy who went out on a date and the girl involved wrote this long winded accusery article after the fact and the guy who was fired when a former girlfriend accused him of some sort of harassment. Men and women should have rights...to due process. It seems to me that some will use the me too movement for revenge and as in the case of Franken political attacks.

[Ken Burch]

97. I agree that we need to move on.

Only started the thread because I hadn't said anything about this at all, and Gillibrand's comments about her motives were deeply disturbing to me.

What matters now is the future.

[left-of-center2012]

57. She also said ...

She considers Al Franken to be a friend of hers.

Franken didn't have to resign.

Franken can still get his 'due process' about the accusations.

(Uh no. Not buying her)

[regnaD kciN]

60. November may provide a final verdict on the oust-Franken movement...

One of the points that those wanting him to resign pushed was that he was sure to be replaced by a Democrat, and so he was. However, she has to stand for election nine months from now -- and it looks like Tim Pawlenty, still quite popular in Minnesota, is gearing up to run for the Republican nomination. It would be the greatest of ironies (worthy of something Franken might have dreamed up in one of his skits or books) if we are on track to run the table (which is what it will require) and recapture the Senate...when an upset victory for Pawlenty in Minnesota shifts the balance back to 50-50, with Pence able to cast the deciding vote on everything for the next two years.

[PDittie]

61. At this point

what difference does it make?

[Skittles]

72. the thought is that she may one day run for president

[democratisphere]

70. When you throw your best under the bus to advantage your own political career, what is next?

[NCTraveler]

74. There was enough foolishness to go around.

Franken not standing up for himself. Sat back and told his colleagues he was going to just let it simmer for awhile. Then quits. Not fighting for yourself as a senator will be a losing proposition every single time.

Gillibrand is just a target at this point. Interesting that it has died down and you now have an opinion. Were there any others who asked him to resign? Outside of DU Gillibrand/Franken isn't the talk of the town. Even at DU it has died. I know that greatly upsets some. Until you have now formed your opinion, of course.

Franken resigned a month and a half ago and I have now formed my opinion about a progressive woman's role in it. Transparent. Just another attack on a progressive. From Kamala Harris to Gillibrand, you launch attack after attack on progressive women. I would like to revisit some of your Kamala attacks if you have time.

[ollie10]

77. Notice To Republicans Wanting To Sabotage Democrats:

Just get more than one woman to make ludicrous charges against a Democrat and....presto.....success!

[LexVegas]

80. ...

[Danascot]

86. At some point Gillibrand may realize

that her actions with regard to Franken ended any hope she may have had for higher office.

I say that as a constituent, former contributor, campaign worker and strong advocate of her for higher office. I'll vote for her if she's the candidate for senator but that's as far as I'm willing to go.

I understand others may have differing opinions and I respect that but this is mine.

[alarimer]

87. It was purely a political move to make it go away as an issue for Democrats

Regardless of the actual truth. Personally, I suspect some political motivations behind most, if not all of the charges.

I don't like Gillibrand, I never have and this episode pretty much seals the deal for me.

[jalan48]

89. As long as she stays in New York I don't care.

[Rene]

96. gillebrand can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned....will NEVER vote for her

she was trying to get rid of political rival.

[ananda]

99. I have no conflict. Consider ..

The three accusers were: a former colleague who was coached by Roger Stone;
a woman who showed a truly innocuous picture as proof; and anonymous (who
for me doesn't count.)

Really??

And no due process?

[JNelson6563]

102. I get a strong

Party of one vibe from her.