The Al Franken dilemma - By Jennifer Rubin

[DonViejo]

By Jennifer Rubin November 28 at 9:00 AM

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) said everything he could say — even that there were no words to wipe away the sexual conduct he has already apologized for. (“I know there are no magic words I can say to regain your trust and that it’s going to take time.”) He sounded remorseful, not defiant. He said he’d cooperate fully with the ethics committee. He did not smear his accusers. And yet, one wonders if that will be enough to spare him, or if it should spare him.

It took a churlish and sanctimonious Republican voice, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, to remind us that Republicans are behaving like hypocrites, like pols who never embraced and endorsed President Trump, who has been accused of serial sexual misconduct by a list of women longer than even Roy Moore’s known accusers. “The things he’s already admitted to I find to be outrageous and offensive — and I do think on that alone he should consider resigning,” Rubio told WFOR-TV in Miami. And would Rubio say the same of Trump? And if so, why not?

So, here we are in a “whataboutism” dilemma, trying to differentiate between the accused sexual miscreants and yet not play partisan politics. We shouldn’t overcompensate for “whataboutism” with an injudicious approach to running every public figure who has misbehaved out of public life. For one thing, we’d run out of public figures.

There are some basic guidelines we might follow.

For starters, no one who has endorsed Trump and has stood by him has the moral authority to judge political opponents accused of sexual misconduct. Rubio is an enabler of Trump; he is also a once-respected pol who helped normalize Trump and protect him from the consequences of his actions (sexual and otherwise). Whatever Rubio’s motives now, unless and until he calls for a full investigation of Trump, pledges not to support his reelection and commits to throwing Moore out of the Senate if he is elected, he should pipe down about Franken and other Democrats. Rubio’s moral compass is broken. His views on the topic therefore are worthless to all but his fellow partisans.

Second, adults make moral and legal distinctions all the time. To spell it out, a serial child predator is worse than a serial adult sexual predator, who is worse than a crude comedian who had no business touching women without their consent. The conclusion that Moore doesn’t belong in the Senate does not mean Franken should be thrown out. Franken deserves punishment, but the severity of that punishment does and should depend on the facts.

Third, unfortunately, good people do bad things, and they need to be held accountable for their misconduct. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) an “icon,” citing his role in opposing the Vietnam War and in the civil rights movement. She properly did not say he should be let off the hook for his alleged offenses against women. And that’s the key takeaway — one can respect the accused and mourn the fall from grace of one’s political idols, but that doesn’t give them immunity for whatever actions they committed.

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/11/28/the-al-franken-dilemma/?utm_term=.bfc1f9e2dba5

[Me.]

1. Simply Cannot Believe

how much I have come to respect Her writing considering how I despised her when PBO ran 2x and was in office for 8.

[forgotmylogin]

2. Good article.

The Rs want to paint with black and white when it politically benefits them, and endless shades of gray when defending their own.

Just like there's a difference between stealing a can of green beans and stealing a car and stealing someone's entire life savings via con artistry.

There's a difference between robbery and armed robbery.

There's a difference between attempted murder, manslaughter, homicide, and serial-killing.

There's a difference between sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape. And there's a modifier when the victim is underage.

[gratuitous]

3. What? Moral and legal distinctions?

You mean, a person should use his or her judgment based on the totality of the record rather than focusing on a laser pinpoint and ignoring every extraneous circumstance? Where's the fun in that? It makes it much harder to destroy a person or that person's career! And what's all this about looking at other instances where we've already excused someone else for worse behavior? How is that fair once someone thinks he's gotten away with it?