The New Yorker re-examines Franken

[pdq]

In a looong piece, the (female) author digs deep into Franken’s downfall. Some tidbits include:

Various inaccuracies and inconsistencies in Tweeden’s story (for instance, Franken clearly didn’t write the script to get a kiss from Tweeden, as she claimed - it was written years before and performed with a number of other women on USO tours, who saw the campy scene for what it was, and had no problem with it).

Little, if any fact-checking before running with Tweeden’s story, but with advance dissemination to conservative media, and no effort to get a prepublication comment from Franken.

Little, if any fact-checking before other Dems turned on Franken and he was asked by leadership to resign immediately (which he did - Franken says “the leader is called the Leader for a reason”).

...and along those lines, comments of regret from fellow Dem senators who mention, repeatedly, the lack of any due process for Franken.

Look, I know from the comments made here at the time that there is little chance that this will change minds, and what’s done is irreversibly done. Franken’s promising career in the Senate is ruined, irrevocably, and perhaps some will see that as justice.

But it’s an informative read that I think is worth your time.

[rjmacs]

I think Al Franken has a long and productive life ahead of him, and I for one welcome his return to public life.

[DeusxMac]

But Tweeden was only a sports commentator...

NSW
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/b1/8b/11/b18b1...4f4ad4.jpg]

In 1992, while working as a hostess at a Hooters restaurant (she was in their 1994 calendar) in Colorado Springs, Colorado, she won first place in the Venus International Model Search. Tweeden modeled for promotional work for Hooters, Venus International, and Frederick's of Hollywood.

In August, 1996, Tweeden appeared on the cover of Playboy magazine, as well as posed non-nude as part of a fitness model pictorial for that issue. Fifteen years later, at 38 years old, she appeared again on the cover of Playboy's December, 2011 issue, this time posing in a nude pictorial.

As part of Hooters' 25th anniversary in 2008, she was named among "The Top Hooters Girls of all time"

[rjmacs]

DeusxMac wrote:
But Tweeden was only a sports commentator...

NSW
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/b1/8b/11/b18b1...4f4ad4.jpg]

In 1992, while working as a hostess at a Hooters restaurant (she was in their 1994 calendar) in Colorado Springs, Colorado, she won first place in the Venus International Model Search. Tweeden modeled for promotional work for Hooters, Venus International, and Frederick's of Hollywood.

In August, 1996, Tweeden appeared on the cover of Playboy magazine, as well as posed non-nude as part of a fitness model pictorial for that issue. Fifteen years later, at 38 years old, she appeared again on the cover of Playboy's December, 2011 issue, this time posing in a nude pictorial.

As part of Hooters' 25th anniversary in 2008, she was named among "The Top Hooters Girls of all time"

This sounds like exactly the kind of misogynist character assassination that is old hat in these disputes.

A woman accuses a man of sexual misconduct, and the response is to dig up anything sexually transgressive or lascivious to undermine her credibility.

I call shenanigans. Tweeden's former employment has no bearing on this. Nothing in her story implies that she was a naif unfamiliar with sexuality before she met and performed with Franken.

If you read the story, there are lots of other reported facts about which to question Tweeden, and the case that was built against Franken in the days following her accusations. None of them has anything to do with Hooters.

[deckeda]

Thanks for posting that link pdq.

From the article, exactly none of his accusers are credible. Sure looks like a snowjob but of course that couldn't have been known during the frenzy. Unless you were perhaps in the Senate and should have known better.

[$tevie]

My only consolation is that Gillibrand will never get anywhere with her campaign. People are still extremely angry with her.

[pdq]

Honestly, I’m a little too close for all this. Franken doesn’t know me, but I feel like I know him - I was at one of his first small-group fundraisers in a neighbor’s backyard, and would stop by if he was making a stump speech during his initial campaign. I shook Frannie’s hand. The fact that they met at Harvard and have stayed together all these years and through all the twists and turns of Franken’s career means something to me.

Anyway, I suppose you develop an image of a person, and I found it hard to believe what was said about him, or that he had less-than-honorable intentions when a hand of his ended up on someone’s rear end in 1 out of 5000 photos he took with people on their request.

All of this means nothing, of course. People are often surprised when folks they know and/or admire turn out to have feet of clay. And that could be the case here. But I still think that, even given the inherent difficulties of allegations like this, there ought to be process, and transparency. And I think in Franken’s case (like with some others) there was neither.

[DeusxMac]

rjmacs wrote:
This sounds like exactly the kind of misogynist character assassination that is old hat in these disputes.

"...some see it as offensive to subject accusers to scrutiny."

Who is she? How has she chosen to present herself to the world? What is her "character"?

Philosophically speaking, aren't we all judged by our behavior and life decisions; Franken AND Tweeden?

[rjmacs]

DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
This sounds like exactly the kind of misogynist character assassination that is old hat in these disputes.

"...some see it as offensive to subject accusers to scrutiny."

Who is she? How has she chosen to present herself to the world? What is her "character"?

Philosophically speaking, aren't we all judged by our behavior and life decisions; Franken AND Tweeden?
Having worked at Hooters or posing for Playboy or Fredericks of Hollywood would not make me question a woman's character or life decisions. What decade is this?

You know who did do that that to Tweeden, according to the article you linked? Sean Hannity did. So count yourself in fine company, I guess.

Why not point out that she lied about getting in to Harvard, or was a birther during the Obama years, or has been a long-time supporter of our current president?

So many legitimate critiques, but apparently some folks have an irresistible urge to go for the most sexist one available.

[deckeda]

DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
This sounds like exactly the kind of misogynist character assassination that is old hat in these disputes.

"...some see it as offensive to subject accusers to scrutiny."

Who is she? How has she chosen to present herself to the world? What is her "character"?

Philosophically speaking, aren't we all judged by our behavior and life decisions; Franken AND Tweeden?
Feel free to judge her any way you like, especially on her choice of clothes or lack thereof if it tells you something important and relevant here. It doesn't tell me a damn thing, but I am curious how it helps you assign her character.

Do liberals pose in skimpy clothes or even naked for publication? Yes, so that theory doesn't work here unless it's the case that an absence of clothes equates to an absence of cogent thought or something else.

I'm struggling.

Tweeden chose to present herself to the world as someone whose story doesn't hold up well beyond "I felt bad, so ... he's guilty."

Speaking of which, this part is key to the whole thing:

Not long ago, I asked the woman if she thought that Franken had been making a sexual advance or a clumsy thank-you gesture.

“Is there a difference?” she replied. “If someone tries to do something to you unwanted?” From her standpoint, because she was at work—a professional woman deserving respect—his intentions didn’t matter.

This deletes the possibility he could be an asexual clumsy dork, so long as she instead interpreted it as sexual. At some point, the recipient must also be allowed to be wrong about signals received. It certainly happens every day in real life, and it works like this: We've all been told it's not all about you, which means whatever you thought about you could also be incorrect.

I take additional umbrage with the idea that professionals somehow "deserve" additional respect. Doesn't that smell like narrowed expectations, with similarly limited acceptable outcomes?