re: #125 dangerman

im sure franken did the political calculus seeing his support eroding

he put party before self

i also think to some extent he felt/knew he had done something at least a little bit wrong and would be harder and harder to defend as a total innocent

re: #129 A hollow voice says, Covfefe.

I have to say, something that we now consider wrong but that wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow 11 years ago. I prefer the present, but I won’t condemn past actions on the basis of standards that did not then apply. Like that photo, IMHO.

He never said he was a total innocent (and nor did we). And yep, it was a jerky photo then, and unwanted kisses and grabs have never been acceptable (just accepted, perforce).

But I’d be ranting about due process anyway. And I’m still pissed at Sen. Gillibrand for that assertion that there are no degrees of offense. She’s half-right, and came off as defensively self-righteous. Yes, all unacceptable behavior should be called out and examined, not excused or covered up. No, we shouldn’t tolerate repeated offenses once the offender has been called. Yes, there should be consequences for unacceptable behavior, commensurate with that particular behavior. But there bloody well ARE degrees, and the suggestion that ‘zero tolerance’ demands identical reaction and equivalent retribution for every offense is blind, counter-productive, puritopian, and isn’t going to help us deal with a power problem that’s existed in every patriarchal society since they invented them. Mandatory minimum sentencing won’t work in this context either.