Yes I’m a liberal holding my own side to a higher ethical standard. So what? There is no grey area here. Either believe the women or protect the predators. There is no evidence the Ethics Committee has done its job in the past or that Congress is currently capable of policing itself on this issue. Frankly, there is a lot of evidence it has swept these cases under the rug and silenced victims with taxpayer hush money. A move straight of the Cardinal Law playbook. Every major media organization has firmly reacted to their own predators with swift firings. It’s time for the Democratic Party to do the same or we’re just as shitty as the Republicans when it comes to protecting predators that vote the way we like.
Conyers and Franken Must Resign or We’re All Full of ****
Please share widely!
doubleman says
100% endorse.
Franken has another accuser today.
I am disgusted by the Democrats for circling the wagons on these men or calling for inquiries.
scott12mass says
I guess you can understand Conyers itching for a little female attention more than Franken. After all his wife Monica was away in federal prison for a couple years for being a convicted corrupt politician.
Wonder why I (and more and more people) have given up on the Republican and Democratic parties.
petr says
She was away in prison for being convicted? How very… clarifying.
I don’t wonder at all. I wonder why you think some purely hypothetical high ground can mask your cowardice.
JimC says
Deep breaths might be in order.
All these cases are distinct. I agree that Conyers should resign. I am more and more convinced that Franken should resign, but I’m not quite there yet.
Roy Moore is a horrible, unacceptable candidate even if all his accusers are lying (which they aren’t). He is the worst of the people we’re discussing. (And no, that’s not partisan — no less a figure than MItch McConnell supported Luther Strange in the primary.)
But these are all adult men, capable of their own decisions. We have no capacity to force them. I think a lot of quiet pressure is being applied, and I think that’s enough for now. I’ve actually seen very little circling of wagons.
petr says
We tried convicting on accusations alone, up the road in Salem, some time ago… And the Republicans have been using that playbook as well, at least since Joe McCarthy.
As much as I believe the accusations, I also believe that a ‘higher ethical standard’ does involve either due process in the case of denial of the accusations (as is the case with Conyers) or an opportunity at redemption when the accusations are acknowledged and the crimes repented of (as is the case with Franken). Otherwise we should just say the Salem Witch Trials were exemplary American jurisprudential endeavors….
JimC says
Pelosi says Conyers should go.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/30/politics/nancy-pelosi-john-conyers-resign/index.html
Again, I don’t mind her patience with him. Dude has been around for a LONG time.
jconway says
The due process argument is a crock for several reasons.
1) None of you are applying it to Republicans
It’s selective. No different from Trump bashing Lauer and defending Moore. We are so much better than that. It’s consistent if we apply it to every accusation, in which case, we are back to square one pre-Weinstein.
2) Congress Lost the Authority to Police Itself on This
The Ethics Committee has already slapped members on the wrist for this and
used a taxpayer funded slush fund to buy off victims. We are talking Cardinal Law territory here. Apparently the speaker and leadership didn’t even know it existed. Until we fix that and make a clear and transparent process, then I trust the women and want resignations.
3) Credible Women Keep Coming Forward-its not just one
Including some high level Conyers staffers and other Franken accusers after he was elected. It’s real and they should go.
jconway says
4) Women in Congress are calling the Ethics Committee BS
Including Rep. Kathleen Rice, a former prosecutor who walked out of a meeting saying the Dems aren’t taking this seriously.
petr says
You are become faintly ridiculous: having been the one to state, quote, “I’m a liberal holding my own side to a higher ethical standard” Which is it?
I don’t know that I ever said the congressional investigation was any more legitimate than the McCarthyite one, nor that due process is limited thereto. Nothing that I know of prevents a special prosecutor from investigating a member of Congress.
So if ten people see a bank robbery we should do away with the process? No trial? No judge?
No jury? No Defense? Just lock ’em up? How’s that gonna work out?
JimC says
1) Please stop saying this. We aren’t calling for “due process” for Moore because there isn’t time. The election is in 18 days. Also, as noted, each case is unique.
jconway says
Alabama is a conservative state. Doug Jones will only win if we convince enough conservatives that this election is extraordinary and they need to put higher principles over party. That higher principle is zero tolerance for pedophiles. Tolerance of which the entire GOP doesn’t have a problem with since electing a pedophile serves their bottom line. Our candidate should be beyond reproach when it comes to how they treat women if we claim to be the party for women’s rights. This means a higher standard-zero tolerance for sex assaulters. No elected Democrat should support another elected Democrat who is credibly accused of this behavior. We should clean our own house as well. That’s all. It’s the only consistent standard. Otherwise our values and principles are dependent on our partisanship and that’s exactly what’s led the GOP down their moral black hole.
tedf says
I’m not sure why folks keep talking about due process here. We are talking about political judgments, not legal judgments. And we’re not even talking about quasi-legal proceedings like expulsion from the House or the Senate, or impeachment, but just politics.
doubleman says
Yes. This is not for prison time and certainly not for execution (like was alluded to above). You just don’t get to have your powerful job any more if you abuse women. And you can work on redemption as a non-elected official.
For example, Moore can be afforded additional processes if he wins, refuses to resign, and the Senate wants to move to expel him (they won’t).
petr says
That’s not what your demanding. You’re demanding that some doesn’t get to have a powerful job any more if you are accused of abusing women. The accusations might be true now, but if the mere presence of an accusation becomes enough we should have elected Joe McCarthy president back in the day.
tedf says
I think the poster’s point is: is this the standard we apply to Republican miscreants or Hollywood miscreants?
jconway says
My political judgment is they should resign and/or we primary them until they do.
Christopher says
Why are you on such a warpath about this? With us or against us is almost never an attractive attitude. Besides, this should be for the voters to decide. I’ve learned today that Conyers won’t seek re-election, which is more appropriate than resigning since this isn’t worth a vacancy and a special election. They can’t just be fired. Expulsion is a high hurdle and we risk falling into he who is without sin casting the first stone territory.
jconway says
Because a close relative was assaulted by her professor and a good friend was assaulted by her commanding officer. This doesn’t end until we decide it ends for good. I am sick and tired of good women quitting politics, the military, or academia because of abusive men.
Mark L. Bail says
People close to me have sexually assaulted–everything from molestation to rape. We all have, whether we all know it or not.
Sad to say, but this doesn’t end soon. It gets better, but as long as there are disproportionate relationships of power, people will be abused. The scales of have finally tipped away from silence, but it won’t improve until we have a system and due process in place.
bob-gardner says
Is Stanley Rosenberg out too? The Globe article today is pretty damning.
JimC says
Is the first case of a spouse being accused? I think so.
Also, credit where it’s due: Ernie said this guy would be trouble way back.
bob-gardner says
But not the first time that a Senate President’s family member has been an issue.
seamusromney says
See, this is the problem with taking this to witch hunt territory. Rosenberg didn’t do anything wrong, yet you’re maligning him based on what his husband did.
Christopher says
I hope not, or we’re descending further into witch hunt territory if sins of the spouse becomes the standard.
Mark L. Bail says
Calls for Conyers to resign is a piss poor form of accountability.
Due process is important. We should have it. We don’t. We’re stuck with an emotional, unreasonable call for resignations because we don’t have a system or due process. I agree with James that justice can’t necessarily wait for due process and a system to be implemented. At this point, both Conyers and Franken seem pretty much guilty. I don’t oppose their resignation. Still, I’m glad Franken is pushing for an ethics investigation.
Why? I think we’re running the risk of innocent people getting accused. What’s the standard of proof for calling for a resignation? Is one accusation enough? Or two? Or one really bad one? Or a few from questionable sources. Or the intensity of the calls for resignation? What happens when a James O’Keefe tries to set up someone with some fake accusations? What about Garrison Keillor? The automakers tried to run this kind of thing on Ralph Nader back in the day.
I don’t care if an elected official resigns over credible allegations, but a slogan of zero tolerance and calls for resignation resonate too much with moral panics of the past. Salem. Satanic Ritual Abuse. McMartin Day Care.
On Twitter, Evan Falchuk was spouting the same crap as Chuck Todd: why can the private sector get rid of their abusers while the public sector dithers? The answer is simple: democracy. John Conyers has a team, but he doesn’t have a boss. There’s no one to fire him. Matt Lauer had a boss and a contract. That’s the reason elected officials are less accountable. I see this all the time with elected officials. They don’t do their job or do it badly, but they can’t be fired. Accountability is weakened when there isn’t a direct line of authority.
Ernie was right. His husband is trouble. There’s no indication that Stan did anything wrong, but given our current standard of accountability…
tedf says
Well, would you say that Roy Moore is the victim of a Mora panic?
Mark L. Bail says
Moral Outrage Is Making Many People Stupid
I did NOT say that anyone was a victim of a moral panic. I said we were running a RISK of it without a process in place. Moral outrage and calls for resignation are a piss poor system for accountability.
Frankly, the intellectual reasoning on this issue is embarrassing. It’s all moral outrage and no thought. If protecting women from violence and sexism weren’t near and dear to our hearts, many of us would be disturbed by the lack of process. Stan Rosenberg’s husband is the latest. Will people be calling for Stan’s resignation? Why not? I know what I think. I know a lot of people here have stopped thinking.
In normal times, calling for a person’s resignation when they are exposed works okay. When there are many people exposed, I’m not sure it does. I don’t care about the accused. I won’t cry if they resign. There’s enough evidence in the court of public opinion for me.
A slogan of zero tolerance and calls for resignation resonate too much with moral panics of the past. Salem. Satanic Ritual Abuse. McMartin Day Care. What’s the standard of zero tolerance? How far back does it go? If Al Franken had done one thing in 2006 (not 6), should he resign?
And thanks to Spence and Seamus Romney who read just enough of my comment to express their moral outrage and misunderstand me.
James Conway and I have been going back and forth on this for a while. Not that everyone would know that, but I keep developing my understand of this issue. And it is an issue. We need a system in place. I’ve dealt with people close to me who have suffered everything from molestation to sexual assault to sexual harassment. I left the Church because I was reading about the crimes committed and covered up. I know the damage it causes. But you know what? I can still use my brain to understand a phenomena and figure out what needs to be done now and think about the future.
tedf says
My main concern here is that our reactions seem to be tied up in politics. We (I just mean Americans collectively, not you) seem to cut our own guys slack but not the other team’s guys. Best example yet in my view: Senator Gillibrand, who has been outspoken in the “believe all victims” camp, and who has said she would vote to expel Roy Moore if he is elected, has also seemed unable to say that Sen. Franken should resign. Why? If the issue is due process, the greater seriousness of the allegations against Roy Moore should be all the more reason to withhold judgment, it seems to me.
doubleman says
Related: Franken has a sixth accuser today.
On Moore, Ted Cruz laughed off the idea of expelling him from the Senate if elected and said that it is “up to the voters of Alabama.”
Mark L. Bail says
Politics is THE problem. I agree. Gillibrand is running for president, I think. That explains her bringing up Clinton’s wrongdoing. The private sector is in a better place in that people can be fired. We don’t hire elected officials and we can’t fire them. And there is no reasonable, expeditious system in place. But we shouldn’t rejoice in calls for resignation and zero tolerance.
The younger generation, I think, has a hard time understanding a time when sexual harassment was commonplace. I don’t mean that they are wrong in their feelings toward these crimes or the fact that they are unacceptable now. But understanding and addressing these crimes has to take into account when they occurred. If Franken had done one wrong thing 20 years ago, it should be regarded differently than his doing 6 wrong things in the last 10 years. Call this a Statute of Limitations.
Another factor to consider is Franken’s alcoholism. It seems to have started and stopped long ago, but was it a factor in the last 11 years? Does that lessen his guilt? Does it matter? Call these Mitigating Factors.
Another factor. An elected official’s electorate. How much do they count? If Conyers’ voters overwhelmingly want him to stay, does that matter? Does the Democractic Party push him to resign? Maybe it does, but what are the ramifications of that. Call this the Representative Factor.
A congressman or senator resigns and tips the balance of the power in such a way that the opposing party gains an advantage and passes legislation that inflicts material damage on women. Call this the Big Picture Factor.
The Democrats get all the perpetrators in Congress to resign. The Republicans don’t care about their party. I mean they even have mixed feelings about electing a pedophile. The Democrats lose power, which interacts with the Big Picture Factor. Call this the Political Factor.
People were calling for Al Franken’s resignation after the Tweeden revelation. I didn’t agree at that time. Would that “punishment”fit the crime? A single offense 11 years ago? Call this the Punishment Should Fit the Crime Factor.
The Purpose of Justice. Should we seeking restorative justice or retributive justice or try to protect women in the future? Or all three. Call this the Justice Factor.
We can’t wait for a process to be built to address the number of revelations coming out these days. Call that Justice Delayed. But we should be thinking about these things, not just engaging in a moral outrage.
Christopher says
6 6s for the above comment! Editors, when is the ratings feature coming back?
jconway says
Worth noting that Ryan got Joe Barton to not run for re-election over much smaller offenses. Barton, a moral hypocrite for sure, may even be a victim of a cat fishing scheme. He was still asked to not run again. Why not Franken or Conyers until later this week?
Also now that all the leaders y’all have been defending have flip flopped to
My side does that change anything? St. Nancy is finally on the victims side, why isn’t the majority white male readership of BMG?
Christopher says
For me at least it is not a matter of being or not being on the victims side. For the most part what I have said holds even if we completely stipulate the accusations are credible. The Barton point you mention contains for me a key distinction. He has decided not to seek re-election at Ryan’s urging. That may be appropriate for others as well, but it is different from resigning before the term is up. BTW, why do you throw “white” in to your description here? This has nothing to do with race (and if it did, white people coming to the defense of the founder of the CBC would in most contexts be considered an enlightened thing). What really frustrates me about your rhetoric on this is your attempts to catch us in hypocrisy in a manner worthy of our old friend JohnD. The distinctions are not partisan, but on degree of severity.
Christopher says
She also said Bill Clinton should have resigned, which I guess is to her “credit” in the bipartisan department, but definitely brings her down a few notches for me.
jconway says
Had he resigned he’d have saved us the agony of 1998 and set Gore up as an incumbent against Bush.
Christopher says
You mean the “agony” of gaining Congressional seats by the WH party that year – a rare feat for a midterm? Clinton himself probably would have mopped the floor with GWB and Gore’s biggest mistake was not using him. Plus, given how all that came out I got to the point where any consequence for Clinton in my mind was an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the VRWC.
spence says
You know what “resonates”? Getting raped or having your career ruined because you won’t put out,
All this witch hunt angst is gross and an insult to the reality of how pervasive and long-standing this all has been & frankly and indication of how deep misogyny is embedded. There was no rash of possessions in Salem, there is (and has been for a long time) a friggin epidemic of sexual abuse, assault, and harassment in our culture. An epidemic lasting decades or longer, btw, for which there has been barely minimal amounts of accountability until the last couple months.
Nobody want innocent people getting in trouble, but it’s quite a thing that so many are so so concerned about a potential loss of prestigious job (that hasn’t even happened) when there have been thousands (millions?) of people (women & men) sexually abused in the workplace in one way in or another in recent history….with near zero accountability.
bob-gardner says
There are several problems for the Senate President. One is the firewall that he promised to have in place but wasn’t. Another is the claim by one of the victims that Sen Rosenberg ‘s office didn’t seem surprised to hear about Hefner ‘s actions.
Mark L. Bail says
Problems? Definitely.
But if we’re not going to make judgements on the efficacy of elected officials, what is our standard?
Spence and Seamus Romney think the degree of moral outrage they can muster should be the standard.
jconway says
I think saying it’s up to the voters is lazy and absconds our party leadership and Congressional leaders of any responsibility to police itself and its members. There should be a culture where these resignations happen. It happened to Weiner who has also been prosecuted for sending texts to a minor.
Why not zero tolerance for people that have actually groped and violated women? Republican leaders cut off funding to Moore, nearly universally called for him to drop out, and have stated they do not support him. They have threatened to expel him if he wins. Since they believe the women and reject the notion that his accusers are making it up. Yet the same progressive leaders rightly calling out the GOP for failing to endorse Doug Jones and ensure Moore loses were the first to use the Trump defense on their own allies. “Let the voters decide” and “let due process occur” is rank hypocrisy on these two cases.
They should resign immediately and the party leadership can ostracize them until they do. Voters follow the lead of political leaders willing to call out their own for immoral and criminal conduct.
JimC says
You make some fair points here, but:
Nancy Pelosi has called for Conyers to resign.
The GOP is lying about expelling Moore. They won’t. The tune will change really quickly to “The voters have spoken.” (If he wins, still an if.)
jconway says
Again if they lie about expelling Moore all the more reason for us to swiftly expel our own lesser offenders. I really don’t understand why this is such a hard concept to grapple with.
What woman in their right mind would work for either of these clowns after this? Is that the kind of Congressional office we want to have?
I welcome that Pelosi and Clyburn have flip flopped on Conyers-but it shouldn’t have taken them that long.
And for folks complaining about losing power, Conyers and Franken are in safe fuckin seats. No way we can’t have better progressive Democrats ideally without penises to replace them.
Every single day we delayed on Franken Moore recovered his lead in the polls. Let’s not pretend that’s also not connected. Just as Trump bringing out Clinton victims perversely defended him from a reckoning over his misconduct so is this.
Your arguments are the Republicans are worse/their arguments are the Democrats are just as bad and hypocritical. It makes a wash if misconduct that should be totally disqualifying for any elected official. Period.
Mark L. Bail says
Politics is THE problem. I agree. Gillibrand is running for president, I think. That explains her bringing up Clinton’s wrongdoing. The private sector is in a better place in that people can be fired. We don’t hire elected officials and we can’t fire them. And there is no reasonable, expeditious system in place. But we shouldn’t rejoice in calls for resignation and zero tolerance.
The younger generation, I think, has a hard time understanding a time when sexual harassment was commonplace. I don’t mean that they are wrong in their feelings toward these crimes or the fact that they are unacceptable now. But understanding and addressing these crimes has to take into account when they occurred. If Franken had done one wrong thing 20 years ago, it should be regarded differently than his doing 6 wrong things in the last 10 years. Call this a Statute of Limitations.
Another factor to consider is Franken’s alcoholism. It seems to have started and stopped long ago, but was it a factor in the last 11 years? Does that lessen his guilt? Does it matter? Call these Mitigating Factors.
Another factor. An elected official’s electorate. How much do they count? If Conyers’ voters overwhelmingly want him to stay, does that matter? Does the Democractic Party push him to resign? Maybe it does, but what are the ramifications of that. Call this the Representative Factor.
A congressman or senator resigns and tips the balance of the power in such a way that the opposing party gains an advantage and passes legislation that inflicts material damage on women. Call this the Big Picture Factor.
The Democrats get all the perpetrators in Congress to resign. The Republicans don’t care about their party. I mean they even have mixed feelings about electing a pedophile. The Democrats lose power, which interacts with the Big Picture Factor. Call this the Political Factor.
People were calling for Al Franken’s resignation after the Tweeden revelation. I didn’t agree at that time. Would that “punishment”fit the crime? A single offense 11 years ago? Call this the Punishment Should Fit the Crime Factor.
The Purpose of Justice. Should we seeking restorative justice or retributive justice or try to protect women in the future? Or all three. Call this the Justice Factor.
We can’t wait for a process to be built to address the number of revelations coming out these days. Call that Justice Delayed. But we should be thinking about these things, not just engaging in a moral outrage.
jconway says
Franken’s wife was alcoholic not him. Her alcoholism actually led to a powerful ad that saved his ass when the Lesley Stahl rape jokes were going to sink him in a Democratic Primary. If only we had realized what a fraud he was back then…
Mark L. Bail says
The Republican leadership has no morals and no interest in preventing wrongdoing if it benefits them. Roy Moore will benefit them. Donald Trump still benefits them.
1) They have plenty of skeletons in their closets and 2) they love to see us taking down our own people.
jconway says
How are we exhibiting moral leadership by letting our sex offenders stay in power? That makes little sense.
Here’s a radical thought: no sex offender should holding public office and the party that stands up for women’s rights enforces that to the full legal extent through the conduct of its leadership and fundraising/endorsement arms.
Mark L. Bail says
“Sex offenders” is a legal term with a specific meaning. People who sexually harass may break the law, but they don’t register as sex offenders. I think that’s where we still differ. You don’t differentiate between offenses and offenders.
Here’s an example: a man and a woman run for union rep. The man who is large makes up a slogan that refers to his fat and her breasts. It’s a catchy slogan and completely inappropriate. There’s no question this is sexual harassment. If I follow your logic correctly, you believe he should be immediately fired.
Now this guy is not a serial sexual harasser. He’s not a pervert. In his long career as a teacher and coach, he was never sexually inappropriate. No one felt threatened by him. He could be a horse’s ass at times, but he was, in general, a good teacher and colleague.
The principal investigated. He talked over the situation with the woman. He asked her what she wanted to do. She was pissed, but she didn’t think the guy needed to be formally disciplined. Instead he was able to apologize. He was sincere, almost crying. He went on to finish his career as teacher and coach. Everyone moved past it.
If I understand your thinking, he should have been fired. Why?
jconway says
Yep. Since he is a danger to his colleagues and female students until he is fired. He can cry and reconcile and make amends after he is out of a position of authority.
It’s also consistency. If you make it an automatic firing offense there is a clear and consistent consequence for breaking the rules and no ad hoc under the table arrangements. That’s the environment where hush money thrives. Let’s not forget for every sincerely repentant colleague like yours there are scores of fake apologizes.
That culture of forgive and let live is exactly what led to endless parish transfers after bogus confessions and therapy sessions for pedophile priests. Not equating the offenses-I am saying not having a consistent and clear consequence creates a culture of double standards where women’s voices aren’t valued. I would never have gone back to her and asked her what she wanted to do. That puts the onus on her when it should be a third party HR rep making a decision on her behalf to punish him. It’s why we have a judicial system instead of asking victims what they want to do with offenders.
I want clear rules and clear consequences and they are only clear and consistent if you make no exceptions.
Mark L. Bail says
You’ve left the sphere of liberalism and entered some other realm much closer to the authoritarianism that Seamus Romney accuses you of.
jconway says
Was it authoritarianism when Lauer and Rose got canned for violating clear policies? I’m with you that there should be an investigation. But you can’t have an investigation without clear files and consequences for when they reveal misconduct. It sounds like your institution didn’t have these guidelines and was a good two or three decades behind the times.
Every job I’ve had I’ve signed contracts saying I’d be terminated if found sexually harassing a colleague. Are these not standard? I had to pass a CORI report and take a sex harassment training to start teaching. I’m also a mandatory reporter. This “authoritarianism” has been common place for at least two decades in most workplaces.
Christopher says
I DON’T want “clear and consistent consequences” for unclear and inconsistent actions!
Christopher says
There has to be a sense of proportionality and degrees of severity. For me Moore and Weiner stand out because children were involved. Not all incidents are created equal and neither should the penalties.
jconway says
So Air Force combat veterans getting groped by future Senators is acceptable so long as they are pro-choice Democrats? Got it.
Christopher says
NO! You are starting troll. Where did I say anything about distinctions of politics, especially since I put Weiner (who I very much like politically) and Moore (who I very much don’t) in the same category? Plus there is still a huge gap between what is not OK and what is worth making a federal case out of. A one-time grope deserves a wag of the finger and if that information comes out voters are free to judge that, but it should not be permanently disqualifying. I should add that as much as I seem to be defending people on process and proportionality grounds the teacher in me is frustrated beyond words that so many grown men seem not to have gotten the memo circulated in kindergarten saying they should keep their hands to themselves.
jconway says
How can angone not qualified to be a kindergarten student be qualified to be a Senator? Until the perpetrators lose their jobs it’s not a memo they will receive.
Lastly Franken is now accused of groping six women. Including four while a candidate or in office. At what number is a resignation warranted?
Also now that Pelosi and Clyburn have flip flopped on Conyers have you?
Christopher says
The voters are responsible for them losing their jobs unless expulsion is warranted, but for me it is an extremely high bar. Since as I understand it Conyers settled I’m not sure why we are rehashing it. If Pelosi and Clyburn feel that strongly they should introduce a resolution to expel him, and he already stepped down from committee leadership. To me the first question is if it is worth triggering a vacancy and special election in Michigan for a term that sunsets next year anyway. I’m not there yet in this case. If it really is groping I’m not sure there is a number that would trigger leaving for me. We wouldn’t expel a kindergartener from school for touching either unless it became so unsafe and there really was no other recourse.
seamusromney says
Jconway thinks he’s smarter than the rest of us, so he proposes to abolish democracy and let Our Betters make decisions about who gets to represent us. What a fascist.
Mark L. Bail says
Seamus, is it really you or did your precocious 12 year-old brother take a break from flaming people on Call of Duty and take over your BMG account?
seamusromney says
Maybe authoritarian was the better word. But seriously, this idea that party leaders, and not the voters, should get to decide who gets to be in office and who doesn’t is deeply offensive to anyone who believes in democracy.
seamusromney says
And on top of that he’s lying about the GOP cutting off funding for Moore. The NRSC said they were doing that, but look at the numbers.
April 1 to Sept 30, he raised $2.5 million. http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/10/roy_moore_raising_more_money_t.html
Oct 1 to Nov 22, he raised $1.6 million. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/12/01/doug-jones-fundraising-lead-roy-moore-alabama-senate/915214001/
His fundraising has picked up from 500k/month to 800k.
Mark L. Bail says
James is doing what we’re all trying to do: grapple with an enormous problem in an extremely difficult environment. His point of view has developed, as has mine, over the last few weeks.
jconway says
So you prove the GOP are liars doesn’t prove that I’m a liar or a hypocrite for demanding our party do better by the women we claim to serve.
Do you have daughters or sisters? Want them assaulted by their bosses or professors?
If the answer is no the politics shouldn’t matter as much as the principles.
jconway says
Actually the framers gave Congress he power to overrule the voters and expel members. Trafficant and Powell didn’t gripe any women and still got expelled.
seamusromney says
What happens when it’s a crime that other people take more seriously than you do? Should Jeff Sessions, or people like him, get to kick people out of Congress, against the will of the voters, for smoking weed?
petr says
We don’t have to guess. O’Keefe, apparently had a woman make false accusations against Roy Moore to the Washington Post, ostensibly with the goal of discrediting the WP wholesale…. The WP didn’t fall for it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic–and-false–tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?utm_term=.602b1c29a846
(since this is first, I think the WP relaxes their paywall for a limited number of articles. YMMV).
Mark L. Bail says
James my comment won’t nest.
You wrote, “Was it authoritarianism when Lauer and Rose got canned for violating clear policies?”
Clear policies and contracts provide due process. I’d have to check my contract to see what it says, but I have to go take a shower and go to a party. Contracts typically make
In the case I mention, the guy in question made a mistake. He was not a danger to female staff or students. You are assuming that’s the case because it supports your case. You also conflated anyone who commits sexual harassment with sex offenders. You’re starting to sound like a Leninist.
In another case, a teacher was accused of sexually harassing a student. He survived the investigation, ended up with a 30 day suspension. My principal tried very hard to get rid of him because the guy was a perv. The woman in question showed mercy. She knew what they guy was like.
Christopher says
It appears you did not finish your second paragraph above. As for Lauer and Rose, the key distinction, I think as you were trying to say, is that they have bosses who can fire them. For politicians their constituents are there collective boss and they are free to take this into consideration at the next election. As jconway mentioned above they could be expelled, but that is rightly a high hurdle. I’d hesitate to do it over information the voters had at the time of election and assume it would involve some hearings and not just done summarily as soon as one becomes a legislator. For criminal matters there’s always prosecution and I would say removal should be automatic upon a felony conviction.