A Good Start

There are several reasons prominent Democrats could have cited in endorsing their nominee, Abdul el-Sayed, in his bid to defeat Mike Rogers in the U.S. Senate race in Michigan. This is one of the best:

Democrats are united by a common purpose: putting a check on Donald Trump by defeating his Republican enablers and taking back the Senate. We look forward to working with Abdul and Democrats across Michigan to win this seat in November,” the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, and Kirsten Gillibrand, who chairs the Democratic Senate campaign arm, said in a joint statement.

They could have sat this one out, as thus far has Michigan senator Elissa Slotkin, whose courage rivals that of Louisiana senator Bill Cassidy, who voted for the nomination of Todd Blanche as Attorney General because, it appears, Donald Trump otherwise would be even meaner to him. Slotkin also did not endorse in the primary race between el-Sayed and Haley Stevens, preferring the Sgt. Schultz approach. 

In promoting the nominee, Schumer and Gillibrand might have stated "hurt people hurt people" while explaining the bruising primary battle between el-Sayed and Stevens. Theoretically, they could have endorsed el-Sayed's vigorous campaigning featuring his friendship with Hasan Piker.  Piker, who has himself enthusiastically endorsed Hamas over Israel and blamed the USA for 9/11, has added to his greatest hits collection:

Hey @AbdulElSayed, do you agree with Piker on this? Do you agree it is ok to rape the daughters of wealthy people? https://t.co/ajZYa5fInU

— Fred Guttenberg (@fred_guttenberg) August 7, 2026

More realistically, such Democrats could defend the nominee's scapegoating of AIPAC and defend his constant refrain about Israel committing genocide in Gaza. A few lies from a Senate candidate cannot compare to the never-ending lies from the President. Instead, they gave about the best possible argument for supporting Abdul el-Sayed, that the highest priority is "taking back the Senate".

Certainly, they could have done even better, such as by lauding the party's nominee for supporting "universal health care". El-Sayed goes further by advocating Medicare for All, which is the means to the end of assuring universal health care. Most of the more centrist Democrats, such as Haley Stevens, either oppose Medicare for All of have remained noncomittal. 

The sweet spot for centrist or moderates endorsing progressives such as el-Sayed would be to applaud the candidate's support for universal health care while they ignore the issue of the more ambitious Medicare for All.   Whatever Americans think of the latter approach, most clearly approve of the goal of health care for all. Done smoothly, Democratic politicians can assert support for universal health care and, if they wish, avoid offering specifics.

For some bizarre reason, prominent centrists and moderates (unfortunately) skeptical of MFA avoid coming out even for universal health care.  Nonetheless, Chuck Schumer and the others did their best to rally support for the party's candidate, even though they- wisely- wanted him to lose to Haley Stevens.

 They didn't lavish praise on their candidate; they attacked the very unpopular Donald Trump. And they took a dig at his "Republican enablers," subtly ridiculing the opposition, including their own Senate colleagues. Democrats act as if they're allergic to criticizing Republicans lacking the initials "DJT," but here they did.. If other Democrats follow suit, they even have a chance of wresting the Senate from Republicans, even with candidates such as Abdul el-Sayed.

Share |

Where "Patsy" Is Not "Cline"

The editors of The New York Times deserve credit.  On Saturday, The Times called for the resignation of New York governor Andrew Cuomo, whom it acknowledged it had endorsed for re-election, including for re-nomination.  Its twelve paragraph editorial not only emphasized the charges of sexual harassment against the governor but said nothing about his nursing home scandal.

The Times thereby avoided egregious disingenuousness. As policy, the decision to send Covid-19 patients from the hospital to nursing homes, then hiding statistics about the deaths of nursing home residents, was atrocious. As scandal, it didn't amount to much.

Without the sex charges leveled against the governor, the nursing home disaster would be an occasional topic for the Times and even less often a topic for The Washington Post and other great newspapers.  There would have been relative silence except for a few calls from New York state legislators for Cuomo to step down because they have their own, generally justified, beefs with the governor.

Neither Majority Leader and New York senator Chuck Schumer nor New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand would have proposed he resign, nor would there have been speculation that President Biden would do so, and The New York Times itself would have been reticent. After an initial uproar, social media would have gone on to other things and the unnecessary deaths of many elderly New Yorkers would have been forgotten.

So make no mistake: pressure is mounting on Governor Cuomo to quit because of terrible behavior toward women and for (virtually) no other reason. As marketing professor Scott Galloway remarked in a discussion (in a video no longer available; I've substituted another) on Bill Maher's Real Time

But at the same time, they trigger me because women and people of color lost one of the most powerful advocates when Kristen Gillibrand decided to disappear Al Franken so she could have a seven minute run for President. And we're in the midst of a pile on and here's the reality: voters get to decide in 18 months. The majority of- of- 48% of white people, 63% of non whites believe he should not resign. We as Democrats need to be the party of women but we also need to be the party of due process. We need to slow down, let those women be heard and let due process occur here and not just pile on.

Twenty-three years ago, during the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, Democrats understood that sex improprieties were insufficient cause for dismissal short of an election.  That has radically changed as many, boasting enlightened thought, rush to judgement because they fear the opprobrium of mainstream media and the outrage of a portion of their base.

If Democrats continue to succumb to pressure and demand ouster of their own elected officials, they will not earn respect from Republicans. They will receive passing praise from the media, which will do Democrats no good. And that portion of their base demanding the man's scalp will move on to the next outrage. On a positive note, they could begin wearing bright blue jerseys reading "patsy."

Share |

Gillibrand Proves Warren's Point

Elizabeth Warren was right, though it took another candidate- Kirsten Gillibrand- to prove it.  On May 14, Senator Warren defended herdecision not to bolster Fox News' bottom line and give the network cover against advertisers queasy about a far-right network in Donald Trump's pocket. She

used a series of Twitter messages to accuse the network of giving “a megaphone to racists and conspiracists” and providing cover for corruption. She also returned to one of her campaign’s central themes, framing the channel as the sort of corporate “profit machine” she has railed against.

  

“Hate-for-profit works only if there’s profit, so Fox News balances a mix of bigotry, racism, and outright lies with enough legit journalism to make the claim to advertisers that it’s a reputable news outlet,” Ms. Warren wrote. “It’s all about dragging in ad money — big ad money.”

“A Democratic town hall gives the Fox News sales team a way to tell potential sponsors it’s safe to buy ads on Fox,” she continued. “I won’t ask millions of Democratic primary voters to tune into an outlet that profits from racism and hate.”

Refusing to perform (and it is a performance) at a town hall must have been a difficult decision because nobody has failed to come out smelling like a rose in this venue since President George Herbert Walker Bush repeatedly looked at his watch while debating Bill Clinton in 1992. It's set up that way, and no politician fails to charm the audience.

So Warren's position was an outlier, for which the Massachusetts senator has faced some criticism. Yet if not earlier, it became clear what the objective of these affairs is when

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) challenged Fox News’ coverage of abortion during a town hall event on Sunday, accusing the network of peddling disinformation to the chagrin of host Chris Wallace.

Gillibrand, the latest Democratic candidate among a crowded field to appear on the network for an hourlong Q&A session, used a question about late-term abortions to pivot toward Fox News’ coverage of the issue. Just over 1% of abortions across the country are performed at 21 weeks or later, according the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but such procedures get outspoken criticism by groups against reproductive rights.

“What we’ve created, unfortunately, is a false choice and a false narrative. Chris, I want to talk about the role Fox News plays in this, because it’s a problem,” Gillibrand said in response to the question. “I can tell you before President Trump gave his State of the Union, Fox News talked about infanticide. Infanticide doesn’t exist.”

Wallace quickly cut the senator off, saying that the network had invited her there as a guest and had thus far been treating her “fairly.”

“I understand, maybe to make your credentials with the Democrats who are not appearing on Fox News, you are going to attack us,” Wallace said. “I’m not sure, frankly, it’s not very polite when we’ve invited you to be here.”

Gillibrand said she would address her concerns politely, and continued on.

She continued (inserting criticism of Fox News), passionately defending her position on abortion while avoiding answering the actual question asked. That was satisfactory to the Fox News host because these events aren't really about information, anyway.

We don't know Senator Gillibrand's view of late-term abortion specifically, but we do know that these "town halls" are a charade, with the intent to normalize an extreme cable "news" network among advertisers. We know that as long as Fox News can host good little boys and girls who participate in the charade by avoiding criticizing Fox News, everyone wins.

Thus far, Gillibrand, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, and Bernie Sanders have appeared, with Julian Castro due later this week and Bill deBlasio negotiating. Those who have or will show up know what the deal is. It's not necessarily with the devil, but it is in return for the inevitable applause, good optics, and favorable news coverage. However, with Warren's emphatic refusal and the decision of Kamala Harris not to participate, we're learning which candidates aren't going to play ball with Trump TV and the expectation that candidates show deference to it.

Share |

Flashback

Following Robert Mueller's statement Wednesday, a few additional Democratic candidates for President have come to the wise policy and political decision.

Senator Cory Booker tweeted "This Administration has continued to stonewall Congress’s oversight. Beginning impeachment proceedings is the only path forward." Former Representative Beto O'Rourke seventeen minutes later chimed in "There must be consequences, accountability, and justice. The only way to ensure that is to begin impeachment proceedings." Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Representative Seth Moulton also came out definitively to start the process.

They have joined three other Democratic aspirants, including Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Julian "don't call me Fidel" Castro,  in advocating initiation of impeachment hearings.

If you noticed two notable names absent, you're paying attention.  Senator Sanders tweeted "Given the reality that we have a president who believes he is above the law, Congress must continue its investigations. If the House Judiciary Committee deems it necessary, I will support their decision to open an impeachment inquiry."

No Democrat, and few Independents, are arguing that Congress drop its investigations. Neither would anyone expect any Democrat, let alone one of its candidates, to oppose the House Judiciary Committee if it decides to open an impeachment inquiry.  More could have been expected of a candidate thought of as bold and candid when he challenged Hillary Clinton in 2016.

More, though, should not have been expected of Joe "fever will have broken" Biden, and he responded in character, with his National Press Secretary remarking

.@JoeBiden for President statement on Bob Mueller's comments earlier today: pic.twitter.com/dxiNl2ZmH0

— TJ Ducklo (@TDucklo) May 29, 2019

"Elect me and everything will be fine." Biden recognizes the impeachment process as viable if the Administration continues on its path, whatever he considers the path to be, and however long it would have to continue on the "path." Moreover, he does not believe it would be unavoidable, only that it may be unavoidable.

More telling, however, is Biden's fear that no one would "relish" an impeachment process- and that it would "divide" a country which everyone but Joe Biden realizes already is divided.  This is the Judiciary Committee chairperson who backed off in his responsibility to conduct a fair and impartial hearing on the Clarence Thomas nomination, instead smoothing the way for the guy who intimidated Biden by claiming "a high tech lynching of an uppity Negro."

Good ol' Joe feared being divisive. Margaret Carlson nailed it when last year she wrote

The hearings revealed a weakness in Biden that leads him astray periodically: a cloying need to be liked, more by his enemies than his own tribe. His pals Sens. Alan Simpson and Arlen Specter wanted to be done with the spectacle, by which they meant Hill and the other women with their inconvenient accusations. Biden told New York magazine that he’d given his word to then Sen. John Danforth in the gym that he’d use his gavel to make it a very quick hearing. 

In one of the upcoming Democratic presidential debates, the candidates probably will be asked whether they would agree as President not to issue a pardon to Donald Trump.  Suspense should rise as we await Joe Biden answering as most- or all- of them do, or whether he chooses to answer honestly.

Share |

A Little More Information

Controversy swirling around the second highest elected official in Virginia may give us a glimpse into the perspective of Democratic candidates for the presidency. On Monday we were reminded by the Associated Press

Two women have made allegations against Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax. But on Saturday, Fairfax issued a statement repeating his strong denials that he had ever sexually assaulted anyone and made clear he does not intend to immediately step down....

Though Virginia's congressional delegation is split

Since the two allegations against Fairfax were made, many top Democrats running for president in 2020 have called for Fairfax’s resignation, including Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

Attorneys for both Meredith Watson and Vanessa Tyson say their clients would testify in any impeachment hearing,   Fairfax has denied the charges and called for an FBI investigation, though it is more likely an investigation would be conducted by local police and/or prosecutors because the the offenses alleged are not federal crimes.  

He also decried a "rush to judgement" and that was before Politico reported late yesterday.

A woman who alleged Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax raped her in college was accused of harassing and threatening a man she had a relationship with, according to Maryland court records.

The man sought and received a peace order against Meredith Watson in July 2008, the records show. A peace order falls under the “umbrella term” of a restraining order in the state of Maryland, University of Maryland law professor Leigh Goodmark said. It is applied to situations in which a person may need to ask for distance from someone who isn't their spouse or live-in partner, he said

In a petition for the restraining order, obtained by POLITICO, the man described an incident in which Watson “was detaining me against my will ... [and] not letting me leave” a vacation house in Corolla, N.C., and “dented the trunk” of his vehicle with her fist. In another instance, Watson showed up at his house stating “she was going to kill herself” and sent “threatening text messages” to the man, who had his sister come over to persuade her to leave, according to the document.

Watson’s spokeswoman, Karen Kessler, did not comment for this story before publication. After the story was published a lawyer for Watson, Nancy Erika Smith, said the order granted was a seven-day court order and that Watson “was not in the Courtroom and did not know about the proceedings or have an opportunity to be heard” when it was issued. The man “abandoned the effort after hearing from Ms. Watson’s lawyer,” Smith said.

The dispute between the two centered around $2,000 that was owed to Watson and was resolved, Smith said, with the man agreeing to pay Watson. The man who filed the request for the order did not respond to a request for comment for this story, nor did Fairfax through his office.

It appears that, regrettably, the three presidential hopefuls who had it all figured out were not asked for comment.  Politico adds

Watson also told friends she was raped by former Duke University basketball player Corey Maggette, according to a report in The New York Times. “I have never sexually assaulted anyone in my life and I completely and categorically deny any such charge," Maggette, who became an NBA player, said...

The petition against Watson also stated that, “Within 30 days the respondent was at my home and wouldn’t leave [and] the respondent was throwing property and I had to call my sister over [to] the house to make her leave. On numerous occasions respondent has stated she was going to kill herself."

“This isn’t the first time or occurrence,” the man wrote.

The petition said Watson called the man “around 100 times a day” after the vacation house incident and sent him text messages.

“I am going to enjoy tearing you down just as much as you enjoyed tearing me down. Hang on tight because you are in for a ride!” read one of the alleged text messages that the man transcribed on the petition.

It still is possible that Watson was in fact raped by Justin Fairfax or that there was improper contact of some sort.  Even if not the case, there is still the matter of the charge made by Ms. Tyson.

However, this most recent information that has come to light demonstrates further that there needs to be a full investigation.  We probably then would learn why- in a question no one media outlet has had the backbone to ask- a woman raped by a man and one forced into oral intercourse evidently did not report the matter to either the local police department or the county prosecutor's office.

There may have been an awfully good reason in both cases. Still, it's a missing critical piece of this puzzle.

Also missing is an explanation by Mr. Booker, Ms. Warren, and Ms. Gillibrand as to whether they are convinced the allegations are accurate or instead believe that the charges themselves require Justin Fairfax to step down from the position to which the voters of Virginia elected him.  It's the least we should expect from individuals who are asking voters for the opportunity to pull us out of the mess we got into a long time ago, and which Donald J. Trump is aggravating almost daily.

Share |

The President Of The One-Track Mind

You've all seen this tweet, sent by President Trump twelve hours before polls closed in an election I had totally wrong:


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office “begging” for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump. Very disloyal to Bill & Crooked-USED!
8:03 AM - Dec 12, 2017

Amanda Marcotte replied with with three tweets, one of them

Amanda Marcotte
@AmandaMarcotte
Trump supporters, this morning: Step one, read Trump saying Gillibrand would do “anything” for donations, chuckle merrily to yourself while making a rude sexual gesture. Perhaps say something lewd about her to a friend or your wife.
1:21 PM - Dec 12, 2017

Indirectly, Marcotte- not specifying Trump as the recipient of the sexual favor- inadvertently laid the groundwork for Sarah Huckabee Sanders' slick, albeit crassly dishonest, defense of her guy during her Tuesday news conference. Responding to a question about "sexual innuendo" Sanders claimed

I think that the President is very obvious, this is the same sentiment that the President has expressed many times before when he's exposed the corruption of the entire political system. In fact, he's used similar terminology many times when talking about politicians of both parties, both men and women. And certainly in his campaign to drain the swamp. The system is clearly broken, it's clearly rigged for special interests, and this president is someone that can't be bought, and it's one of the reasons that he's President today.





Sanders cleverly misinterpreted Trump's tweet, which Marcotte already had misinterpreted.  The President's spokesperson shifted the argument to one about "politicians of both parties" allegedly being corrupt and implied that they beg for money from special interests.  After the follow-up question, she remarked "politicians repeatedly beg for money, that's not something new."

But Trump had not referred to Gillibrand specifically or special interests generally.  Instead, he spoke of one particular individual who approached one person specifically: someone who would come to my office "begging" for campaign contributions... (and would do anything for them).

The President said nothing about other politicians and nothing about any doing things for a myriad of special interests. He said she came to him for money and would do anything for it. It's his fantasy, one not uncommon among men who both long for and ridicule practitioners of the oldest profession.

American Urban Radio reporter April Ryan tried to meet the Administration halfway, choosing not to say that Trump had employed sexual innuendo but merely that it had been interpreted that way.  "Are Democrats owed an apology," she asked, "for their misunderstanding of the tweet this morning because they, including the Senator, think it's about sexual innuendo?"

The proper answer- given Sanders' denial(s)- would have been "we cannot be responsible for misinterpretation of the President's statement."

Of course, Sanders chose not to defend the boss but to attack his skeptics. She replied "only if your mind is in the gutter would you have read it that way," thus demonstrating a) she is extraordinarily sexually naive; b) she is a ruthless, crude defender of someone more ruthless and crude than most of us ever have met or heard about; or c) the Administration, valuing only victory and strength, cannot be reasoned with, only challenged and defeated.

I vote (b) and (c).  In 2013, Donald J. Trump told Celebrity Apprentice contestant Brande Roderick, a former Playboy playmate, "it must be a pretty picture you dropping to your knee." Some things never change.







Share |

Franken Must Go- If....

It was six days- nearly a week- ago that Bruce Bartlett, having had enough, tweeted

The issue is not whether charges against Franken are true; I assume they are & charges against Trump are also true. But I don't hear progressives demanding that Trump resign, only that Franken resign. It's the double standard that the left enforces on itself that drives me crazy.

On Sunday, December 10, Kirsten Gillibrand became the fifth US senator (all Democrats) to call on Donald Trump to resign or consider resigning as President because of the allegations that he has harassed and/or assaulted numerous women. She had been preceeded by Vermont senator Sanders, New Jersey senator Booker, and Oregon senators Merkley and Wyden, though Ms. Gillibrand was notably the first woman to have asked Trump to step down.

Still (as they all realize) Donald Trump won't resign, so their pleas will prove of very limited value. That is, unless they take that emphatic advice from Bartlett, who served Presidents Reagan and Bush 41.  On the same day as his other tweet, Bartlett had remarked "Democrats are so stupid. The obvious thing to say about the Al Franken business is that he will resign the day Trump resigns."

This plan is brilliantly simple. There is no concern that President Trump will call their bluff because Trump still would refuse to resign. Althoug at that point, Democrats would need a response, if Alabama voters do the predictable today (Tuesday), they have one begging to be used: Franken will resign once there is an ethics investigation of Senator-elect Roy Moore.

This would box in Senate Majority Leader McConnell, who otherwise is unlikely to initiate an ethics investigation because of the bad publicity it would engender for the GOP.  He could accept the Democrats' challenge, in which case well-publicized, possibly lurid, hearings would do his Party no good.  Alternatively, he could stubbornly refuse an investigation.  Not only could Democrats then use a Senator Moore as a campaign weapon (which they are expected to do anyway,) but McConnell's refusal would throw upon the issue greater attention because it would be coupled with the Franken matter.

Bartlett believes the Democratic Party is "stupid" because it demanded that one of its own, Al Franken, resign with no questions asked. But when members of the Congressional Black Caucus, singed by pressure on John Conyers to resign, alleged a double standard, other Democratic pols took notice. When that was coupled with a recommendation from seven female Senators that Franken resign, the Party had no choice. The base would not be denied.





But Democratic members of the House and the Senate, especially blacks and women, are not fond of President Trump.  There likely would be little pushback from anyone in the Party if the  resignation of one (of 100) Senators was linked to that of the President of the United States. The Party wasn't necessarily stupid by pressuring Al Franken to go back to Minnesota. Nonetheless, if in the wake of calls for President Trump to resign they don't link the two, Bruce Bartlett's characterization would be proven accurate, and clearly so.




Share |

Harassment Is Not The Same As Violence

In the majority of cases in which sexual harassment or assault is claimed, proof is lacking, not the least because such incidents occur behind figurative locked doors. In an alleged incident which took place behind a literal locked door

In 2001, the woman said, Mr. Lauer, who is married, asked her to his office to discuss a story during a workday. When she sat down, she said, he locked the door, which he could do by pressing a button while sitting at his desk. (People who worked at NBC said the button was a regular security measure installed for high-profile employees.)

The woman said Mr. Lauer asked her to unbutton her blouse, which she did. She said the anchor then stepped out from behind his desk, pulled down her pants, bent her over a chair and had intercourse with her. At some point, she said, she passed out with her pants pulled halfway down. She woke up on the floor of his office, and Mr. Lauer had his assistant take her to a nurse.

Before the modern age of alleged enlightenment, before calls for "zero tolerance," we would have called this "rape." Now, as you may have noticed, it becomes mere "sexual assault," with its conflicting interpretations and imprecise definition.

Compare that to the incident in which Maineville, Ohio resident Stephanie

Kemplin said while she was stationed in the Middle East during the Iraq War, she met Franken -- at the time, a comedian and writer -- as he was visiting American troops with the USO. A longtime fan of "Saturday Night Live," Kemplin got in line to take a photo with Franken.

"When he put his arm around me, he groped my right breast. He kept his hand all the way over on my breast," Kemplin said in an interview. "I've never had a man put their arm around me and then cup my breast. So he was holding my breast on the side."

Kemplin repeatedly used the word "embarrassed" to describe her immediate reaction at the time.

That was, arguably, the worst act committed by Al Franken, one in which the victim was "embarrassed."  Lauer's victim, assuming the allegation is accurate, was raped.

Now read these words from United States Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat from New York State. Ms. Gillibrand has been a leader in the chamber against the abuse of women and

“I think when we start having to talk about the differences between sexual assault and sexual harassment and unwanted groping you are having the wrong conversation,” Ms. Gillibrand said Wednesday at a Capitol Hill news conference when asked about calling on Mr. Franken to resign. “You need to draw a line in the sand and say none of it is O.K. None of it is acceptable.






To be fair to the New York senator, she did not trot out the bromide "zero tolerance,"deployed by Representative Jackie Speier (D-Cal), who unlike Gillibrand is assumed to harbor no national ambitions.  The term "zero tolerance" sets an extremely, very nearly unobtainable, standard, which Speier virtually acknowledged.  Still, on her Facebook page, Kirsten Gillibrand wrote

As the mother of two young boys, we owe it to our sons and daughters to not equivocate, but to offer clarity. We should not have to be explaining the gradations between sexual assault, harassment and unwelcome groping. And what message do we send to our sons and daughters when we accept gradations of crossing the line? None of it is ok and none of it should be tolerated.

Facts matter. Details matter.  Truth matters. There is a difference between unwanted touching and the imposition of penetration upon another human being.  Assuming the accounts are accurate, then-comedian Al Franken took an advantage of an admirer when he "groped my right breast (and) kept his hand all the way over on my breast."  Approximately two years earlier, the wealthy, powerful star of the "Today" show

locked the door, which he could do by pressing a button while sitting at his desk... The woman said Mr. Lauer asked her to unbutton her blouse, which she did. She said the anchor then stepped out from behind his desk, pulled down her pants, bent her over a chair and had intercourse with her.

Kirsten Gillibrand may tell her two young boys that any unwanted contact of a sexual nature- or perhaps any unwanted contact- is reprehensible.  However, if she neglects to tell them that summoning a woman over whom you have power, locking the door behind you and then raping her is reprehensible, it is only because she is confident they would never commit such an act.

The guess here is that if the United States Senate were to purge itself of all male members who ever have groped or patted the rear end- the latter also inappropriate- of a woman, there would be a very small contingent of men remaining in the chamber.  That is not completely a hypothetical- Gillibrand argued "none of it should be tolerated."   If any of these men were to remain in office, it would ipso facto be tolerated.

You would be distressed to learn that your neighbor had inexcusably punched his friend. You would be far more distressed to learn that he had shot his friend in the face with a Smith and Wesson .45.

Not Kirsten Gillibrand, who minimizes the seriousness of sexual assault by lumping it in with, well, practically everything.  She does not want to have to deal in "differences" and "gradations." And could there possibly be any difference between a George Herbert Walker Bush and a Roman Polanski?




Share |