Al Franken seems to be getting the “hearing” he never got before he resigned from the Senate in 2017. In a recent New Yorker article Jane Mayer goes through the original allegations against Franken by Leeann Tweeden and cites several problems with them. Tweeden accused Franken of writing a kiss into a USO script and then sticking his tongue in her mouth during a contrived rehearsal. According to Tweeden, Franken wrote the skit in order to get his tongue into her mouth.
I won’t litigate the accusation here; I’ll simply note that Mayer appears to do a pretty good job of exploring Tweeden’s claim and discovering that it’s not strongly supported by facts or anyone else’s experience with Franken. The kiss had been in the skit for years, and other women had performed it on stage with Franken without complaints. Even the famous photo of Franken reaching out to Tweeden’s breasts appears to have been a reference to the skit, although it was certainly inappropriate.
Now regrets having resigned
Franken now says he regrets having resigned, and describes himself as having been #MeToo’d out of office. I’m not in a position to critique the #MeToo “movement” and its role in the Franken matter, but I can say that Franken was not a vulnerable man of limited means or inadequate support when these allegations emerged. On the contrary he was a popular, powerful, and relatively wealthy man who was considered a possible Trump challenger. I understand his current situation and appreciate his position, but it’s difficult to see Franken as a victim of much more than his own decisions; his resignation was not inevitable.
I don’t want to kick someone while they’re down, but I have to say I would never vote for Franken again. My problem with him isn’t just the accusations themselves, but his response to them and his handling of the “crisis.” Franken now says that Tweeden’s version isn’t the truth, but at the time he couldn’t bring himself to say that. Why? Most of the people I know (absent chemical dependency or mental health issues) can tell you with little hesitancy or reflection whether they’ve ever stuck their tongue in someone else’s mouth, with or without consent. I know I can. When Franken responded to Tweeden’s kiss allegation at the time, all he said was: “I certainly don’t remember the rehearsal for the skit in the same way, but I send my sincerest apologies to Leeann.” That’s essentially saying: “I don’t necessarily remember what kind of person I am.”
Contrast this with Keith Ellison’s response to accusations by his former girlfriend that he’d assaulted her. Ellison said: “I never behaved in this way, and any characterization otherwise is false.” Given the nature and prevalence of male-on-female sexual assault and coercion, and the history of putting accusers on “trial,” we can certainly understand the reluctance toward answering charges with countercharges. However it’s not difficult to deny accusations without attacking accusers. People in Ellison and Franken’s position don’t have to explain the accuser’s motives, or even attack their credibility, but if the accusation isn’t true, they must say so. The fact that Franken didn’t or couldn’t just say: “No, that didn’t happen, that’s not who I am” destroys his credibility in my mind.
Silence lent credibility to mounting accusations
Refusing to actually deny Tweeden’s version at the time wasn’t the only problem with Franken’s response. He remained silent for days as if he were hiding from the media and his constituents; that didn’t look good, even if it was some adviser’s recommendation. His silence essentially lent credibility to the mounting accusations. Essentially his refusal to outright deny the accusations constrained his response. How do you demand an ethics investigation if an accusation isn’t really in dispute? If you deny the accusation you can say: “No, this didn’t happen, I demand an investigation!”
[image_caption]Paul Udstrand[/image_caption]
At the end of the day this was the first and only major crisis Franken faced as a politician, and it looks like he blew it. What if this had happened after he got on the ballot opposite Donald Trump? What kind of mess would that have been?
I like Al Franken. I voted for Al Franken, and I suspect he’s a decent human being by and large. I wish him well and hope he and his family recover from this debacle. But I wouldn’t vote him again because having seen him deal with this crisis, I don’t think I can trust him to handle a different crisis.
On a final note, I understand the audience Franken was playing to, I get it, and it’s clear that the women he was working with voluntarily participated in these USO skits in order to entertain the “troops.” However, it’s also obvious that these skits (that Franken wrote) were clearly sexist in nature. While not pornographic, the skits obviously cast women as objects of sexual desire and even targets of unwanted advances. Maybe there’s such a thing as harmless sexism, but I’m not going make that argument. If Franken wants to rehabilitate himself he should acknowledge his role in sexist portrayals of women, regardless of the motivation; I don’t see him doing that in the New Yorker article. He can’t be a “good ol boy” and not be a “good ol boy” at the same time.
Paul Udstrand is a photographer and blogger in Minneapolis.
WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?
If you’re interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below — or consider writing a letter or a longer-form Community Voices commentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see our Submission Guidelines.)
Al Franken is also 68 years old. Go enjoy your retirement, Al.
Well, all things being equal, I would prefer MN voters decide who our Senators should be rather than 2 Senators from New York who started a stampede of Me Too purity. Gillebrand to raise her brand and Schumer to get a D Senator from Alabama elected.
The simple truth is if MN had a Republican Governor who would have appointed a Republican Franken replacement, Al would still be on the job.
The R’s (who are most proud of their Christian values) cheerfully accept and offer 85% + support to a P grabbing, porn star paying, accused rapist if he can get them the Supreme Court justices they need and want while the left has unlimited character tests that must be met to pass muster.
I suppose a few on the left can feel good about standing on the moral high ground thru Trump’s second term.
Don’t count me in that number.
Another opinion:
http://tcbmag.com/opinion/open-letter/columns/we-used-to-elect-u-s-senators
In my view, those who condemned Franken showed a terrific inability or unwillingness to assess nuanced matters of intention, credibility and ambiguity. But to me, there are two threshold matters before one even gets there.
First, assuming for the sake of argument that Franken committed an inappropriate act with intent, is that relevant to his holding elected office? Or is an elected legislator’s act of moral failure only relevant if it reflects on his or her capacity to represent his or her constituency and engage in sound lawmaking? There is a kneejerk answer here, but it is not at all clear that this is the correct answer.
Second, and more fundamental in this case, an elected official is accountable to his or her constituents, not his or her colleagues. The official can be voted out of office, or can resign if his or her constituency sufficiently communicates a lack of confidence. That’s it. It was entirely illegitimate for a group of Senators to take a public stance demanding that a member of their caucus resign.
My chief criticism of Sen. Gillibrand and the others who joined her demand was not their lack of discernment in evaluating the assertions against Franken, or in recognizing how they were being manipulated, but rather that in assuming their right to demand Franken’s resignation, they showed that they do not understand how our basic system of representation works.
I would be happy to vote for Al Franken again if he made a comeback. I urge readers of this piece to read the Jane Mayer piece in the New Yorker. Having read the piece I have a completely different perception of the situation than does Mr. Udstrand. The social and political realities of that time put Franken in an impossible situation. Several people in that whole regrettable story did not acquit themselves very well, and in essence Franken was doomed. I wish he would have held firm and insisted on the investigation, but I fully understand why he didn’t.
It’s also worth your time to read the Vance Opperman piece to which Edward Blaise linked.
He got railroaded but the tracks were rusty. His podcast Is informative. He is in his element. I am looking for a new book which I will purchase. He is a lot lusmarter then many in office. if He were to run for office again he would come up against hard line dems which he never was and was the reason I voted for him. Essentially I feel he was shown the door by centrists of both parties. I have had enough of these characters. If there is not a place for Al one should be made.
One hopes nobody else would follow the “I would never vote for Franken again” hissy fit. If it were remotely possible for a Franken-Emmer matchup some day and the writer is influencing enough voters then Emmer wins. But at least we wouldn’t have an imperfect progressive to burden us.
Emmer doesn’t lose in that Gerrymander’d district in any event. Republican’s have that seat until that district is broken up.
What? Gerrymandered district? In 2011 we had a GOP legislature and a DFL guv.
That district was Bachmann’s. I wasn’t redrawn in 2011, and it remains solid Republican territory.
In 2011 the district was redrawn. At least part of Washington County was added to CD4, including Bachmann’s home in Stillwater.
But redrawing is not the same as gerrymandering.
Franken doesn’t even live in Emmer’s district, I should have clearly refered to a statewide matchup, a remote possibilty. Also should have used another term besides hissy fit. Your writing is often spot on and worthy of respect, if sometimes overly judgmental about non-progressive Dems who are vitally needed to win elections, IMHO.
Perhaps if Franken had been “hiking the Appalachian Trail” he’d be able to get back into politics.
It worked for Mark Sanford.
I didn’t like the idea of my vote being nullified by Franken’s resignation either, but I don’t see how that falls on anyone other Franken. Franken nullified the vote when he resigned, he didn’t HAVE to resign, he could have defended himself. I don’t blame his accusers or fellow Democrats for his resignation- it was HIS call. Had he defended himself fellow Democrats and others would likely have rallied around his defense, but you expect that rally if you make a stand.
Check out the Terri Gross podcast with Jane Mayer. His resignation is nicely explained. He was asked to resign by Schumer. He was black balled. He took a reasonable course of action in my opinion. There really was no other. The podcast fills in a lot of blanks from the reading.
Mr. Udstrand makes a good argument- Senator Franken didn’t deny the accusations properly. Had he done so, he would have received more defense from those who really know him (as opposed to the lingerie model cum radio shock jock or State Fair photo op vicitms.)
However, unless one has been subject to this type of accusation in the past, it isn’t obvious to me that one would handle it in the correct manner Paul suggests. I know I wouldn’t know what to say. My relfex would have been to explain Kriten Gillibrands opportunist m.o. That would probably have been seen as worse.
But I will be left to wonder how everything else I know about Franken is wrong,- that he is not the same type as his Republican colleagues that allowed their sexual malfeasance to be paid off by a Congressional fund, refused to resign, and had other CREDIBLE accusers. His staffers still support him and offer no similar stories, and “steering” the folks you’re being photographed with at the fair “toward the camera or the light” is surely not “groping”.
Sexual innuendo used to be comedy gold. Seinfeld, Monty Python, Benny Hill and Bob Hope anyone? I think that is why Franken did “baudy comedy” with troops.
But in the glare and dirt of Weinstein and the #METOO climate, sensitive people were horrified by all of it, while many entertainers still make innuendo jokes that my soon be gone forever under the new sensitivity and consciousness.
Al has the experience now. He wouldn’t make the same mistake again, would he?
How you respond has to depend on what you did.
Keith Ellison was so unequivocal in his denial because he was confident that he had done nothing wrong. His accuser claimed to have an incriminating video, but Ellison must have known that it didn’t exist or it didn’t show what she claimed it did. Ellison handled if better, but he also had much better facts.
In the case of Franken, who was a comedian that engaged in a lot of off color and sexual humor, its more complicated. Tweeden is a right-wing liar, but the picture itself can’t be denied. And there were other accusers as well. The claims were minor (in the scope of the Cosbys/Trumps/Weinsteins, etc.) but the behavior was still inappropriate. He can’t come out and say none of it ever happened, because something did happen.
Probably wishful thinking; but, Al could position a primary challenge not as competition with Tina Smith; but rather as a referendum on how the process went down leading to Franken’s departure. Certainly, if you think Franken got what he deserved for bad behavior, vote for Tina, if you think Tina better represents you, vote for Tina.
If you believe that Franken was booted out thru undue pressure, not related to his job performance as much as unfortunate circumstances, give him a second chance at the best job he ever had and the job he loved the most and a job he worked very hard at with success.
For 8 years he kept his head down and did his job. Some Senators make more cable show appearances in a week as Franken did in a year.
The primary reason for Sessions recusal was questioning from non-lawyer Franken on the Judiciary Committee.
And a perfect screw you to Chuck Schumer: He’s back!
We prefer to decide who will represent us, not you.
Running a primary challenge because he changed his mind about quitting seems like a horrible use of resources in a year where Trump is up for re-election.
Sure, let’s prove this point with a potentially divisive primary challenge to an incumbent whose only offense was to be appointed to the Senate.
What could possibly go wrong? Settling the debate once and for all is more important than winning some silly election, or beating President Trump.
Well, a primary on August 20, 2020 that may include a divisive primary challenge in the Senate Election would not seem to be rolling out the red carpet for Trump in MN in NOV.
“I’m so mad that Tina Smith was beaten by Al Franken, I’m going to vote for Trump!”
Go find that guy.
I’ll give you that it may add some difficulty if the Rs find a viable MN Senate candidate; but, I’m not sure that person exists: I thought Housely would be a threat and she was not and she is not even attempting a second run.
Senator TPAW? Senator Daudt? Senator Bachmann?
The bench is pretty thin as evidenced by throwing poor Jeff Johnson out there twice for Governor.
As described by Vance Opperman in the earlier link; Franken got screwed by petty partisan politics and if he wants a second chance I’m OK with him having at it.
Let’s leave aside the optics of the Senator who, rightly or wrongly, resigned in the face of sexual harassment allegations running to defeat the woman who replaced him.
I agree that Democrats are not going to vote for Trump. If they are disgusted by the primary campaign, they will stay home. Likewise, independents will be put off by a primary that was little more than an internal DFL squabble will likewise stay home, or vote for the Republican senatorial candidate. Failing that, the less-than-committed would vote for a third-party candidate who cleans up nicely as a “:protest vote.”
I do believe you under estimate the committed contempt for Trump.
Folks have an opinion and they will express it at the polling pace with record turnout I believe. Trumps basic campaign seems to be get his support down to his 40% core and get an 80% turnout. After all, this is likely the last chance they will have in their lifetimes to vote for a declared and committed racist incumbent President.
It’s way early, and I could be way wrong; but, when you see things like a Biden 4% lead in Texas over Trump, the folks on the other side are truly riled up by DJT.
The math is interesting, lets say:
137.5 m voters (2016 #)
40% Trumpians with 80% turnout = 44 m votes
55% Someone-else-ians with 62% (historical norm) turnout = 45 m votes
5% Ralph Naderians just wasting their votes.
All of which, of course after doing the math, validates RB’s original argument of do nothing to dis-incentive anybody on the left. Oh well, some posts do not end as they start….
Who’s Tina Smith? (Sarcasm intended)
Technological advances in “communication” have mostly resulted in the opposite: amplification without thought or analysis. This is beyond scary, and may very well mean that democratic process has become utterly dysfunctional. The “groping” photo, when viewed in the context in which it was created, barely rose even to the level of tastelessness, rather than being indicative of real assault or predatory or indecent behavior. Chuck Schumer’s ultimatum, which is recounted in the New Yorker piece and seems to have been utterly disregarded by Mr. Udstrand, was purely political. The tragedy here is that we were deprived of an exceedingly effective senator who was one of the best advocates–especially for women–ever. I shudder to contemplate the myriad other ways in which such travesties may unfold as our political process moves (supposedly) forward.
I’ll just reiterate a couple things in a little more detail than I provided in the article.
Yes, we all know Franken was “pressured” to resign, but didn’t that pressure mount because of Franken’s response, or rather non-response? No one had a chance to rally to Franken’s defense because he never mounted a defense. As Pat Terry points out, was Franken’s failure to deny something happened due to the fact that he knew something happened? And if something happened, how can he deny it now?
Al Franken as been a Democrat’s Democrat his entire adult life. Franken has never been one to seriously challenge his Party. For better or worse the guys a team player. It’s obvious that when Schumer asked Franken to resign, one reason he complied was he and Schumer thought it was the best thing for the Party at the time. I’m sure Franken didn’t want to resign, and I’m absolutely sure he regrets having done so, but he put himself on the path towards resignation when he tacitly acknowledged that Teeden’s account was credible.
In my mind once Franken concedes that the accusation is credible, I’m done here, I have no more questions. The fact that he NOW says it didn’t happen is irrelevant, I needed to know that at the time. I suspect Franken would have won re-election if he’d stayed, but we never got a chance to make that decision because he resigned. And if Franken’s resignation was a “cave” to Party pressure, that’s a problem for me because I expect my Senator to work for me, not the Party. I’m actually not a Democrat, and I’m not all that impressed with the Party, so I expect some independence from my Representatives.
Finally, it seems to be a fact that a lot of women think Al Franken is a creepy guy, right or wrong fair of unfair. Looking at Franken articles this week From the Nation to Vox it looks like a lot of women were waiting in the wings to step forward with more accusations. The fundamental question for a voter now is no different than it would have been at the time: given the credibility of the accusations, would voters voter for Franken despite the accusations?
On a fundamental level Franken is contradicting himself, and I think THAT is rock his comeback crashes upon. At the time he didn’t remember what happened for sure, now he’s positive it didn’t happen?
Meanwhile from an evidentiary perspective Franken and Mayer have not actually discredited Tweeden’s claim regarding a tongue in her mouth. Tweeden may be wrong about the origin of the skit details, and the kiss, and some others may not have had or report a similar experience, but none of this proves that Tweeden doesn’t know what’s going on in her own mouth. Franken may not “tongued” others, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t do it to Tweeden. Franken’s own contradictory claims put this forever in the realm of an irrersolvable “he said-she said” claims. How’s Franken going to handle the flood of new accusations that would surely ensue in the event of an attempted comeback? This issue isn’t going away, Franken doesn’t just get a “reset” minus the sexism because he’s decided to change his mind.
And, frankly, there were plenty of other details in the Mayer story that weren’t favorable to Franken, such as the fact his staff had to tell him to stop kissing women on the mouth.
We should also remember that there is precisely zero assurances that a Senate Ethics Committee investigation would have provided the sort of due process or exoneration that Franken desired. Testimony is frequently taken in private, not in public, and the committee isn’t even required to publicly release its findings.
Tina Smith won her election like everyone else. She stepped up and stepped in when we needed someone and she’s doing a fine job in Congress. Franken quit.
She’s doing well enough that Housley isn’t going to challenge again, which I thought was a foregone conclusion.
I meant no disrespect to Tina Smith, who is an excellent senator. My point is that knee-jerk piling-on in response to an accusation, without the appropriate process, makes a travesty of our so-called system of government. And “it seems to be a fact that” and “it looks like” are no better. Mr. Udstrand is entitled to his opinion, but having read both Ms. Mayer’s exceptionally fine work and also Mr. Opperman’s opinion, I hope it’s clear to all who read this piece that it is not the work of an investigative reporter.
I too would hope that it’s obvious I’m not investigating or interested in investigating anything here. I don’t think this pretends to be anything other than an opinion piece.
I’m a diehard Franken supporter … he has come to the aid of my family when we really needed it … but I agree with Paul. The #MeToo movement was Franken’s Bay of Pigs moment. How would he act in the face of a crisis? I can’t pretend to know what it’s like to face so much pressure, but I wish Franken would have stayed.
On a party level, Franken’s course of action is a weakness among the Democratic Party. When caught in a compromising situation, they slink away with their tail between their legs. They’re ashamed of their behavior, unlike the Republicans. Yes, John Edwards was having an affair while his wife was in the hospital. But I wasn’t looking for a Husband-in-Chief, but a Commander-in-Chief.
The Dems have their moral purity … if they only had the Senate majority.
What I like about Franken is his ability to speak to – and connect with – Trump’s supporters in language they can understand. I have a recurring suspicion that Trump and his Russian supporters knew that, and amped up their social media operation to make sure that Franken went down.
This was more of Big Pharma’s owned Senator seeing an open to attack. Al was not not a friend to Republicans or Bi Pharma reps. I wish he would of fought this.