I get it. We know Roy Moore would be a terrible Senator who would roll back the rights of anyone who isn’t straight, white, Protestant and male. He will make Jim Crow seem quaint. He will fight to have his own version of Sharia law implemented in the US and go after the rights of persons of color, women, children and the LGBTQ community (not necessarily in that order).
Donald Trump is a horrible President. He should never have been elected. He is incompetent. He is a sexual predator. He is profoundly un-American in his views.
Senator Franken is a great Senator. He truly fights for progressive causes and is trying to push the US back to the left. Losing him, even if this is a problem ultimately of his own making or a hit job by the Republicans, weakens us in fighting back legislatively.
Representative Conyers is a good Representative. He strengthens us in the House. Losing him, again whether through a problem of his own making or a hit job by Republicans, will weaken our caucus and give Republicans fodder for "both sides do it."
The problem comes from the fact that if our standard is some kind of ethics investigation or conviction in a court of law, Roy Moore and Donald Trump are innocent. They have never been convicted of anything. They have never been able to have their accusers under oath or cross-examine them about their allegations. To defend Franken and Conyers based upon that standard is to defend Moore and Trump. To argue otherwise is simply to make it a partisan issue. If this becomes simply a partisan "Republicans are bad because they are Republicans, but Democrats are not bad because they are Democrats," how are we different from the Republicans?
Some have said that Franken's first accuser must be lying because she's a Republican who has appeared on Fox News. Ok, then the fact that Moore's and Trump's accusers have not appeared either via the Washington Post or New York Times (while we would consider them more conservative, most people would consider them more liberal-leaning) has to be used to nuance (ore exclude) their accusations.
How about the “but the timing of the Franken accusers is too perfect” argument. Well, Roy Moore’s accusers didn’t come out against him before now, and he’s been a Statewide figure for decades (I’m from Alabama originally). They could have said something before now, including his two runs for the State Supreme Court. So we’re ok when someone finally gets the courage to speak out against a Republican, but if someone didn’t automatically speak out against a Democrat, then they must be suspect?
The women who made accusations against Trump were never held to that level of scrutiny. The only really damning evidence was the tape of him talking about being able to assault women due to his celebrity. That was before the public, and it wasn’t enough evidence to keep him from being elected. In a court of law, I don’t know if it would be enough to sway a jury.
“Pictures show she is lying!” We don’t even have pictures against Roy Moore or Donald Trump, simply accusations. If we are demanding some kind of unimpeachable proof for Democrats, we have to have the same standard for Republicans otherwise this is simply partisanship. We don’t like Republicans, so their flaws and mistakes should be held against them, but we do like Democrats, so their flaws and mistakes should be excused. After all, we have majorities to win!
“She posed for Playboy! She touched a guy’s butt!” Ok. Then no woman who has ever posed for Playboy or another men’s magazine can ever be sexually assaulted or harassed. If she has had sex outside of marriage or flirted with a man, that must also taint her accusation. After all, she was sexual with other people. That means she can never say “no” again or feel pressured to be sexual with someone when she doesn’t want to be sexual.
“Roy Moore is being accused by someone who was 14!” Yes, but again, she didn’t make this accusation in a place where she was under oath and could be cross-examined. If she had sex with someone else, even if it was with someone her own age, or participated in a sexual act other than intercourse, does that disqualify her? The others were 16 or older. With the exception of the one woman who (still not under oath,) made an accusation, all were of the age of consent in Alabama. Being hit on by a 30 something may be gross, but it isn’t illegal. And there is no indication that he forced anyone after they said no. To the women here, if a man makes a sexual advance and when you say no he backs off, is that enough to be considered assault? If it is, how many men here have hit on a woman and when she said no backed off? Do you think that your behavior was out of bounds and makes you a sexual predator?
As for the one woman who accused him of actual assault, she has not testified under oath or been cross-examined. If you are going to say “innocent until proven guilty” with Franken and Conyers, you must extend the same benefit of the doubt to Roy Moore. Otherwise, it is a partisan witch hunt.
Which leads to the problem. Does the Democratic Party care about sexual assault, or does it only care about sexual assault by Republicans? If it is the former, then there has to be some kind of Party response to Franken and Conyers beyond “let the investigation begin.” After all, Democrats pushed for the RNC to cut Roy Moore loose. If Democrats don’t do the same for those under the same cloud of suspicion, then the only conclusion is that sexual assault, the war on women, etc. is simply a marketing tool to be used against Republicans.
But there is a difference between an unwanted sexual advance to an adult woman and to a 14-year-old! Ok...so what is the right “age” where it becomes unacceptable to assault someone? 18? 16? The age of consent in that State? So assaulting an 18-year-old college student is less traumatizing and egregious than assaulting a 14-year-old. How about a woman who is in her 30’s or 40’s? Statistically, they were probably not virginal, so it can’t be “that bad.” Sounds a lot like the Texas Republican who said that if rape was inevitable, the woman should lie back and enjoy it. Is that really the message of the Democratic Party? Is that who we are?
I don't know if Franken or Conyers should resign. But I know that the arguments protecting them boil down to "We want to win, and if women get in the way, then too bad. When it's a better time, when we have a majority, when we don't have to worry about keeping out majority...that's when women can be sexually assaulted and we care." Which sounds a lot like the Republican argument...after all, they don't need a liberal Senator from Alabama who might derail their legislative agenda.
And in the midst of all this, women were and are assaulted. Why come forward? If it's a politician, the parties aren't that different. Oh, one says a lot about "women's rights" and "the war on women," but what it really comes down to is that if a woman's accusations are inconvenient, then they are to be ignored. Could Franken's and Conyer's accusers be lying? Of course. So could Moore's and Trump's. We just don't like Moore and Trump so we are willing to take their accusations at face value.
And yes, women can and do lie about sexual assault. I don't believe many do. But even if it's 1%, that leaves room for reasonable doubt with these accusers until they are either before the ethics committee or a jury.
Do I think women will get a better deal under Democrats than Republicans? Maybe...unless what they want is "inconvenient" at the time and we have majorities to protect. I see a lot of lip service to women's rights, but very little actual caring. Oh, we can pat ourselves on the back, “We’re better than the Republicans!” but that seems to be a very low bar to hurdle.
