On Democrats who skate
Commenter “Art Deco” writes (the first line is a quote from commenter “huxley”):
Not all Democrats skate. Ask Al Franken.
Franken was collateral damage in their campaign contra Roy Moore. If the media / DNC / Capitol Hill complex had been less pressed for time, the scandal, such as it was, would have gone away.
True.
The “me too” campaign and its fallout had many purposes. One of those purposes was to create zero tolerance for the likes of Roy Moore—and hopefully, Donald Trump. Along the way some eggs had to be broken and omelets made.
But I think another principle was too never do anything that would hurt the left too much. Franken was a no-brainer in that respect. The most salient fact about Franken was that his political demise cost the Democrats nothing in terms of power. He was in a very blue state and his replacement was always going to be bluer than blue, so his removal had a neutral effect on the balance of power and gained them virtue points. It hurt Franken personally, but that was not their concern.
Power is what it’s all about.
I’m trying to think of a case where someone was thrown overboard who mattered to the Democrats in the sense of causing a loss of power. The left might be a bit sad about losing Harvey Weinstein’s money, I suppose, but there’s plenty more where that came from.
Bill Clinton was the quintessential example. His sexual behavior was just fine when he was president, and Democrats united behind him to protect him. But after Hillary had lost, and the Clintons no longer mattered, it was okay to jettison and marginalize him.
And then there’s Ted Kennedy.
It’s all purely pragmatic—and if there are exceptions, I can’t think of them right now.
Gary Hart seemed ready to win the nomination before the Donna Rice affair scandal broke. That one hurt them, I thought.
Jeff Brokaw:
Yes, it used to happen on occasion, although it was rare.
I was thinking more of relatively recent times. Hart was thirty years ago. But you’re correct, it is an example I didn’t think of, and I do believe that Hart would have been a better candidate than Dukakis, and so it hurt the Democrats.
I didn’t follow the Franken thing closely, but I believe that Tucker Carlson recently claimed that Kirsten Gillibrand was the senator chiefly responsible for torpedoing Franken. Any truth to that?
Rod Blagojevich was zapped in 2009. Omar seems to be venturing into corrupt gains territory here, so perhaps some parallel is warranted.
Then going back a bit in years (and likely skipping over a few I’ve forgotten) there’s James Traficant in 2002. Further back yet, the ABSCAM sting took down a number of Dems, though I think it was a lone Republican congresscritter among them hardest hit. These sorts are easy to forget.
I believe that Tucker Carlson recently claimed that Kirsten Gillibrand was the senator chiefly responsible for torpedoing Franken. Any truth to that?
TommyJay: Kirsten Gillibrand led the charge against Franken after the #MeToo stuff came out. Maybe Franken would have gone down anyway, but she put the boot in first.
Today Gillibrand withdrew as a Presidential candidate. After Franken resigned, some Democrats had buyer’s remorse and blamed Gillibrand in part. It’s not the whole story, of course, but I believe it was a factor in her campaign’s failure.
neo on August 29, 2019 at 4:15 pm:
“Hart was thirty years ago. But you’re correct, it is an example I didn’t think of, and I do believe that Hart would have been a better candidate than Dukakis, and so it hurt the Democrats.”
Wasn’t it Hart vs. Mondale for the Democrat nomination in 1984? Mondale eventually nailed Hart with chants of “where’s the beef”, playing on a tee vee commercial. (Gary Hart did try running again, I think in 1988, but to no avail.)
Hart would have been a much better candidate than Mondale. In fact, Mondale quipped [I paraphrase but it’s very close], “I always wanted to run for president in the worst possible way — and that’s exactly what I did.”
Gary Hart seemed ready to win the nomination before the Donna Rice affair scandal broke. That one hurt them, I thought.
His lead in the polls was, I think, largely attributable to high name recognition. A critic at the time said his support was a mile wide and an inch deep, with only single digit percentages committed to him. That his campaign imploded immediately with the Donna Rice embarrassment indicates he was atop a foundation of sand. Some of Mondale’s people in 1984 supposedly told reporters that Hart wasn’t being considered for the VP slot because they figured he was an anti-Mondale magnet with no actual constituency of his own.
Dukakis had fewer personal shortcomings than hart, and made the better candidate.
I think for a Democrat to get prosecuted, he has to run afoul of particular establishments or he has to do something quite crudely illegal – something readily comprehensible by an uninformed voter. Examples would be William (“Cold Cash”) Jefferson, who had a chest freezer full of bribe money in his basement, and Jesse Jackson Jr., who misappropriated a six figure sum in donations to his campaign funds for personal expenses. For a prosecutor to get creative, he generally has to have a Republican in his gunsights.
The self-concept of partisan Democrats doesn’t allow them to acknowledge anyone they care about could be guilty of crimes or even ethical lapses (see the bushwah they offer defending Lois Lerner, Robert Mueller, and Peter Sztrok). They’re enraged with Gillibrand for even suggesting that impersonal standards could apply to their people and for suggesting that sanctions are merited. (Gillibrand herself is an opportunist’s opportunist, so this is all pretty amusing).
There is Anthony Weiner, but the reason we couldn’t immediately think of that is part of the answer. He was replaceable in terms of his official power, and the bad press that he generated could be managed at least somewhat until it receded beneath the waves. Legacy media will retain this power for a long time. Even when they cannot control a story when it is hot, they can neglect it until it does not easily come to mind. Conservative media can keep any story alive, but not all of the stories, as there are just too many, so they make choices of their own.
M J R:
It was in 1988, not 1984. See this:
Correction accepted.
I had 1984 in mind, and was not mindful of how much a player Hart had been in 1988 as well — particularly since “Hart withdrew from the race in May 1987.” By the time 1988 rolled around, he wasn’t much of a player at all, as I recall it, and that’s why I had the 1984 primary campaign in mind.
Do carry on . . .