Hope everyone’s had a good Thanksgiving and that Uncle Fred is carving another notch in his end of the dinner table after ventilating Pajama Boy and his attempts to ruin Thanksgiving dinner. I’m sure yours was probably better than Al Franken’s or John Conyers’.
I did want to pop in to explain something that a lot of the twits on the left just don’t seem to get. You would think double standards would be something they’d understand on at least a conceptual level, but even then, what’s going on really is not a double standard. As the Weinstein wildfire rages out of their control, the left has started to dig in and defend their embattled politicians with arguments that sound more or less exactly like the mirror of defenses we deployed for President Trump and Judge Moore. The accusers are lying, this is a witch hunt, there’s no substantiation to these allegations, and on and on. Let’s put aside for a moment the conveniently forgotten fact that neither John Conyers nor Al Franken are facing an election for some time, more than enough to rehabilitate their images and let their accusers fade into distant memory. Let’s also set aside the fact that at least Al Franken has admitted to the behavior, as have most of the accused in Hollywood (and as a side note, to everyone who is saying “so what if Moore denies the allegations, isn’t that what we expect a guilty person to do?”, no retards, we expect someone who knows he is guilty to try to mitigate damage and apologize, but we expect someone who knows he is innocent to fight back, and for proof look no further than the rest of the ongoing wildfire).
The point I want to explain here is that it’s entirely fair, reasonable, and consistent to apply one standard to people like President Trump and Judge Moore, and another to people like Al Franken and Harvey Weinstein. I’ve said for a long time, I don’t believe any such allegations on the accusation alone, and for the overwhelming majority of these supposed “assaults” I don’t consider the behavior serious, at all. I’m saying this as someone who has been shy and uptight around women pretty much my whole adult life, which means I have been able to observe what guys who are not shy and uptight around women often do and say, and women’s reaction to that. I’ve had more than a few “…you can DO that?” moments watching the players with the pretty women. None of the behavior I ever saw was outrageous, but I saw plenty of stuff that I would consider to be on the over-familiar side, yet I almost never saw any of it responded to with anything but a smile, a giggle, and body language that communicated that the behavior was welcome. My point in saying this is that most of this behavior is considered on both sides to be normal and acceptable. We’re not talking about rape, we’re not talking about “sleep with me or you’re fired” harassment. If you get touched and you don’t like it, the proper response is to slap the guy and walk away from him, not hold it in your back pocket for years or decades until it might be useful to you or harmful to him. Nobody, men or women, wants a world where this stuff is prohibited by law. Yet the left wants to redefine “assault” to mean whatever a woman doesn’t want to happen, and to do it retroactively, at least whenever they can weaponize such an accusation politically.
The dangers and absurdity of allowing the definition of “sexual assault” to continue to broaden (and with them the definition of rape) are a topic for another time. For today I’m focusing on the idea that the mere allegation of such misconduct ought to be enough to derail a campaign or unseat a sitting politician, and it is entirely consistent to apply one standard to President Trump, Judge Moore, and other (though sadly not even close to all) Republicans while at the same time applying a different one to Al Franken, John Conyers, Billy Jeff Clinton, and the Democrats. You see, the correct standard to apply as a default is that anyone can make an allegation and the accusation itself proves absolutely nothing. In both the instances of Trump and Moore, the mere timing of the allegations relative to when the supposed actions occurred versus the imminence of an election is sufficient to rebut and render these allegations bogus, but even if that were not the plain and obvious case, the default is the appropriate standard to apply to both these men because neither has ever applied a different standard to anyone else. Neither ever called for a disqualification or a resignation based solely on unproven allegations. Neither has said that the allegation alone is enough to consider a person unqualified. They should enjoy the benefit of the doubt.
As for Franken, Conyers, and the rest of the Democrats, I still don’t rightly care about most of their alleged misbehavior. I still don’t give a good damn that Franken touched a woman or three. Were it not for the standards they insist ought to apply, I’d blow off the accusations against them like I blow off the accusations against Bill Cosby. However, these clowns and the rest of their party believe and insist that the accusation is enough to condemn a man, because they claim (with a straight face no less) that “women don’t lie” about this stuff. I don’t need to get into how deep the horsecrap in that assertion is. It really doesn’t matter to this analysis, because what does matter is that that is the standard that Franken and the Democrats have used. Pointing out the left’s hypocrisy does practically no good, but holding them to their own backward standards, now we might get somewhere. They’re being forced to play by their own rules, which is a tactic right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook, and it ain’t so much fun.
It is entirely consistent to say you hold Republicans to one standard and Democrats to another, because you’re just making the Democrats live up to their own opportunistic definitions. Their reaction to being made to abide by the rules they have tried to write ought to tell you that, like all the other grievance groups they claim to represent, they don’t actually care about this stuff any more than they can use it to attack Republicans. As for the Republicans, we never claimed (and in fact many of us expressly oppose the idea) that accusers are entitled to be believed. Because they aren’t.