Mister Tee wrote:
I'm thinking in very short order -- maybe a few months, maybe a year or two -- Franken will be in the books like a blacklist victim: as a shameful example of someone unfairly destroyed by the hysteria of the times.
There's another possibility. Perhaps you will see this differently with the passage of time, and wonder with amazement how you could have been so out of step with your thinking back then. I'm not saying that will happen. I'm just saying, maybe we shouldn't be so presumptuous while we're still on the-day-of. Everybody thinks they are right - about anything - and we believe that in time the rest of the country will come around to our way of thinking and we'll be vindicated. This will only be true for some of us. Who knows? Nobody does, and I certainly don't know. But I do know that we are in a really turbulent point in our history, and while we're deep in the middle of it we're not exactly going to have an objective, panoramic outlook on everything that's happening now.
Bog wrote:All in a matter of 5 days we're going to add a Moore and subtract a Franken
But we're not going to subtract a Democrat! If you're upset for the sake of Al Franken himself, I can understand that. If you really liked him (which I did), or if you think he's personally being railroaded, that's one issue. But if we're only talking about the political ramifications, then I really don't see the drawback (about Franken, I mean. Moore is a very different story.)
Mister Tee wrote:Unless it turns out there are verified stories to which we're not privy but other Senators are,
This really is the subordinate clause that everything hinges on, isn't it? I'm a little amazed how people are waving this off as a weak conditional, when it seems self-evident to me that this is exactly the case. How can there NOT be stories that these senators are privy to? Have we forgotten the Hollywood scandals already? Just about everyone who was accused of being a predator/rapist/whatever was known within the industry to be just that. It was an open secret that you had to be careful when you were around Harvey, Kevin Spacey, James Toback, Charlie Rose or Matt Lauer. Maybe not everyone in Hollywood knew it, maybe not everyone knew any specific details, but enough people - a substantial number - knew it, and some participated in helping to cover it up. In fact, when celebrities like Meryl Streep declared how outraged they were at these revelations and that they knew nothing about it beforehand, many of us reacted derisively. I assume the senate is even more clubby than Hollywood, and the idea that they may know more stories about him is more than a little theoretical. And I would suggest that maybe we should consider that's the basis for the senate not supporting him... at least, not until there were eight separate accusations.
Do I have proof of this? Nope, at least no more proof than anyone else has that this is one big, coordinated falsehood. But let's not forget that first there was one accusation. Then there were two accusations. Then there were three accusations. Then there were four accusations. Then there were five accusations. Then there were six accusations. Then there were seven accusations. Then there were eight accusations. And in less than a month. Are any of these accusations, taken singly, heinous enough for a man to lose his job? Not in my mind. But do you seriously believe the number was going to stop at eight? As I said before, if there were two accusations, it's possible there could be eight accusations. Now that there are eight, there could be fifteen. And if there are fifteen, there could be thirty. What, exactly, is the senate supposed to do? Wait until it gets to Cosby numbers? Weinstein numbers? Toback numbers? Or were they supposed to defend him from every accusation? Sure, the Democrats could do the honorable thing and defend him until their poll numbers flatline. But how would they make a convincing case of it when they CLEARLY were not convinced themselves? Shitty as it may be, this was bleeding that had to be stanched. Call it "spineless" if it makes you all feel better. But think of the long game. I think the word is more likely "practicable".