Democrats want to rebrand as the anti-harassment party

[jimnyc]

This will be VERY hard to overcome, more than just Clinton!

---

Democrats want to rebrand as the anti-harassment party. But they'll have to come to terms with Bill Clinton's legacy.

(CNN)There's a decent chance that this time next week Roy Moore will be a senator-elect and Al Franken will be a former senator.

And that seems to be exactly what Democrats want -- to be the zero-tolerance, anti-harassment party and a foil to the GOP, which has indicated it will likely accept Moore if he wins election next week.

It doesn't matter if it's the dean of the House John Conyers, who resigned Monday after decades of service (since 1965!), or the affable and popular Minnesota senator who was popular on both sides of the aisle and just wrote a book snarkily titled, "Al Franken: Giant of the Senate." If there are credible allegations, you're out -- if you're a Democrat.

Contrast that policy with Republicans, including President Donald Trump and the Republican National Committee, who are helping Moore, the Alabama nominee who has been accused of pursuing relationships with a number of teenage girls while he was in his 30s and of assault by two of them. Though many GOP senators have said Moore should drop out, it's clear he won't. And it's also clear they'll seat him and count on his vote to pass the tax cut/reform bill they've been banking on. They've also been slow to react to allegations against Rep. Blake Farenthold of Texas, who used taxpayer funds to settle a harassment case against him.

Side note: It's not easy to get a lawmaker of any stripe to resign. We'll see what Franken does Thursday, but it says something about the pressure they've applied that it's possible both Franken and Conyers resigned despite allegations they disputed.

CNN's Chris Cillizza wrote Wednesday about how big a deal it is that Democrats, sparked by the concerted effort of many of the women they have in the Senate, turned against Franken.

Democrats generally rely on women voters in elections. There are many more Democratic women -- 16 -- in the Senate than Republican women -- five.

That's part of their current DNA. The other thing a purge of accused gropers and harassers could do is help them rebrand from being the party of Bill Clinton. There are two recent presidents who won the White House despite allegations of harassment. Clinton, noted Democrat, is one of them. Trump, Republican iconoclast, is the other. Clinton withstood further allegations in office and Trump clearly plans to do the same, although 20 years later and during a time of monumental change on this issue.

Rest - http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/06/politics/al-franken-bill-clinton-kirsten-gillibrand/index.html

[High_Plains_Drifter]

OMFG.............. http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/hand-gestures/facepalm-hand-gesture-smiley-emoticon.gif (http://www.sherv.net/)


Just when you think you might have seen the DUMBEST thing you'll ever see come from the democrats, they just throw another MIND BLOWER at you.

[Kathianne]

The hypocrisy is astounding, but that's true on the right now too. I think the question will be how well the right can hang the Dems on their 'past,' when conservatives had tended to hold their candidates to a 'higher standard,' think 'Reagan' and discussion of divorce. Now the Right will be defending not only a current voting for, but most endorsing someone that's accused of taking liberties with a minor, in light of their past stance of 'good character,' counts.

Someone brought up MLK and JFK on another thread. Neither were alone in having less than sterling reputations regarding faithfulness or sobriety, but their legacies are under the microscope while so many who were alive back when, are still paying attention. However, the truth is that these flaws while diminishing their reputations doesn't diminish what they did and said that was groundbreaking and good. I for one, wish that we didn't know so much about so many. I'm not saying it's ok to rape and assault, both are crimes, but this whole #metoo, is more than a bit of a problem.

[hjmick]

if they don't purge Conyers (which they did) and Franken and any other suspect member of their party, they will be unable to drive Moore out should he win.

[Gunny]

This will be VERY hard to overcome, more than just Clinton!

---

Democrats want to rebrand as the anti-harassment party. But they'll have to come to terms with Bill Clinton's legacy.

(CNN)There's a decent chance that this time next week Roy Moore will be a senator-elect and Al Franken will be a former senator.

And that seems to be exactly what Democrats want -- to be the zero-tolerance, anti-harassment party and a foil to the GOP, which has indicated it will likely accept Moore if he wins election next week.

It doesn't matter if it's the dean of the House John Conyers, who resigned Monday after decades of service (since 1965!), or the affable and popular Minnesota senator who was popular on both sides of the aisle and just wrote a book snarkily titled, "Al Franken: Giant of the Senate." If there are credible allegations, you're out -- if you're a Democrat.

Contrast that policy with Republicans, including President Donald Trump and the Republican National Committee, who are helping Moore, the Alabama nominee who has been accused of pursuing relationships with a number of teenage girls while he was in his 30s and of assault by two of them. Though many GOP senators have said Moore should drop out, it's clear he won't. And it's also clear they'll seat him and count on his vote to pass the tax cut/reform bill they've been banking on. They've also been slow to react to allegations against Rep. Blake Farenthold of Texas, who used taxpayer funds to settle a harassment case against him.

Side note: It's not easy to get a lawmaker of any stripe to resign. We'll see what Franken does Thursday, but it says something about the pressure they've applied that it's possible both Franken and Conyers resigned despite allegations they disputed.

CNN's Chris Cillizza wrote Wednesday about how big a deal it is that Democrats, sparked by the concerted effort of many of the women they have in the Senate, turned against Franken.

Democrats generally rely on women voters in elections. There are many more Democratic women -- 16 -- in the Senate than Republican women -- five.

That's part of their current DNA. The other thing a purge of accused gropers and harassers could do is help them rebrand from being the party of Bill Clinton. There are two recent presidents who won the White House despite allegations of harassment. Clinton, noted Democrat, is one of them. Trump, Republican iconoclast, is the other. Clinton withstood further allegations in office and Trump clearly plans to do the same, although 20 years later and during a time of monumental change on this issue.

Rest - http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/06/politics/al-franken-bill-clinton-kirsten-gillibrand/index.htmlI think Kathianne ought to sue the author. She already said this. It's a pretty logical conclusion.

I'm not buying into it 100%. The argument that is. You've got these women in Congress playing the victim card for party politics. I hate to have to caveat everything I say, but in saying I don't believe sexual harassment is as wild and rampant as they make it out to be is NOT saying it doesn't exist. I've seen it in action from both sides.

And if you don't think a crazy Dem woman with power is dangerous I got one name for you: Diane Feinstein. Met her up close and personal. She hates me, btw :). No love lost.

This is an issue with no satisfactory conclusion. Guess we could let Homeland Security equip all citizens with body cams:rolleyes:

[aboutime]

All of the politicians who used Tax Payer monies to pay off all of the victims who needed to remain quiet.

And then, we must also remember. Democrats are noted for this kind of "rebranding", especially when it comes to pretending 'THEY ARE SORRY', and being apologetic for saying, and doing things they INTENDED to do...and apologize while crossing their fingers behind their backs. Hoping everybody who believes them is DEMOCRAT.

[Kathianne]

if they don't purge Conyers (which they did) and Franken and any other suspect member of their party, they will be unable to drive Moore out should he win.

Only the right can drive Moore out, but it certainly will change that narrative of the 'moral' party. I really think this is much more a run up for Trump in 2020. As it is, there's a state court case that may bring him front and center on this.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Only the right can drive Moore out, but it certainly will change that narrative of the 'moral' party. I really think this is much more a run up for Trump in 2020. As it is, there's a state court case that may bring him front and center on this.
My bet is the repubs are hoping Moore wins and then they'll try and keep him out of sight and out of mind and hope this shit storm settles before he gets thrown out. But, I highly doubt the dems are going to let that happen.

[Kathianne]

More on the bandwagon. There really are conservatives that were all for getting Moore out of the race, but he's 'all Trump,' so most are behind him. His past or even present are not obstacles-just look at how many versions he's given regarding the accusers. In any case, he's most likely to win:

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/12/06/mcconnell-hope-moore-prepared-ethics-probe/


McConnell: Hope Moore Is Prepared For His Ethics ProbeED MORRISSEYPosted at 8:01 pm on December 6, 2017


Hopefully Senate Republicans will be prepared for it, too. This leftover from yesterday will take on additional importance if Al Franken resigns tomorrow. Democrats clean up their messes while Republicans get theirs elected will be the cry from the media, ignoring their 25-year record of covering for Bill Clinton’s sexual predation and their efforts to get him back in the White House via Hillary.

But still, that doesn’t mean Republicans won’t have to answer for Moore, and that the need will become more acute if Franken hits the bricks:

The Senate Ethics Committee will immediately launch an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against retired judge Roy Moore if the Republican Senate candidate wins a special election in Alabama next week.

The committee doesn’t require a referral from Senate leadership or another entity to initiate an investigation, just the votes of four of six committee members. With the panel split equally among Democrats and Republicans, that outcome is all but assured. Moore, projected in most public opinion polls to narrowly defeat Democratic attorney Doug Jones, would likely be called to testify under oath.


The probe, likely to be rigorous, would be carried out behind closed doors by the Senate Ethics Committee’s professional, nonpartisan staff. It could take months, and might come up empty or conclude with an “admonishment” — essentially a slap on the wrist. The committee could also recommend that the full Senate vote on a motion to “censure” Moore or expel him from Congress.


“If he were to be elected, he would immediately have an issue with the Ethics Committee that they would take up,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters Tuesday during a Capitol Hill news conference.


A fine statement, but the questions begin almost immediately from that point. First, while a number of Senate Republicans have refused to endorse Moore, several — including McConnell — have said that the voters of Alabama have to make the choice of representation. A few, such as Jeff Flake, will probably call for Moore’s resignation immediately, but McConnell’s not going to go that far right off the bat.


Next, an Ethics Committee investigation will likely confirm much of what has already been reported, but only after several months of doing their own independent work. Does McConnell expect Moore to resign at that point? If he’s still around, how much will that matter? Assuming that the Ethics report looks as bad as things do now, will McConnell make Moore the first sitting senator expelled since 1862? He might have to do so, because Moore’s making it crystal clear that he can’t be shamed into withdrawing, no matter what evidence emerges.


Besides, there may be an issue of scope in a Moore ethics probe, as John Cornyn pointed out:


“There’s due process. It’s not just hang ’em and then give ’em a fair trial. There will have to be a process by which they gather information and then they make a decision, and that requires a majority vote,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, who previously served on the ethics panel. “They need to make some fundamental decision like, are they going to consider pre-Senate conduct, which, that would represent a change in the policy, because the last time I was on the ethics committee, they only considered conduct while you were in the Senate.”


That jurisdictional issue might have stymied a Franken probe too, although Franken appeared to waive that technicality in pledging to cooperate with the committee. Does anyone think Moore will waive it? Maaaaybe, if he’s convinced that he’s clean despite his numerous inconsistent statements over the last few weeks on whether he knew the accusers or not. However, the statements attacking accusers and contradicting his own claims could be within the scope of the committee given that they took place during the campaign, so Moore may not be out of the woods on that point anyway.


At some point, Republicans will have to play hardball with Moore, if he wins the race, which is no slam dunk at this point. Moore will make them play hardball. McConnell wants people to think that the GOP is up for that … while the RNC is committing more than a million dollars to get Moore elected. Good luck selling that spin.

[jimnyc]

My guess is that Trump, and other Repubs, are staying behind Moore as that "seat" is needed more than Moore is. Perhaps after, and if he wins, THEN he gets pushed out, and another (R) comes in to save the seat.