Yeah but it's not like Trump was ever accused of sexually harassing women. Oh wait...
The double standard is so obvious it's painful. The problem is that the media knows the Democrats will do the right thing and in this case, it's to agree that Cuomo step down for obvious sexual transgressions. The Republicans on the other hand always put up a fight, regardless of how glaring the evidence, especially in the case of Trump. Geez, the Times and the WaPo are still defending Trump by not printing in their largest typeface on their front pages daily that Trump should be indicted immediately. Matt Gaetz, you stay, Cuomo, you go. Trump you stay, Al Franken, get out for good because of a photo taken while employed as a comedian.
Which Dems? Not even "virtually" from what I've been reading in the nonrag world. Especially when it comes to New Yorkers, whose place it is, more, to determine what's at stake and the weight it actually carries in real life.
And as for anyone else, a citizen accused of whatever 'crime' is due their day in court. This debacle deserves more nuanced perspective than the hasty, oddly timed, hatchet job it's been given.
If folks can't smell the sewer rats behind this railroading of a nonissue that has (for obvious reasons) come to the fore post Tя☭mp, then they're either sensory deprived or riding the drumpf train.
And to every male assuming all females who encounter males (boss or not) who make any show of attraction, or feeling, are incapable of holding their own, you're way off the mark.
Present feminist movements may have gone somewhat off course with bandwagon jumping and knee jerking but, believe me, there are plenty of us out in the world and workforce who know the difference between harassment, bullying, flirting, and testing the waters. We also know how to deal with it, ward it off, or see it coming and signal 'no go' from the get go. It's about pride and self-esteem, in addition to recognizing disparities among colleagues.
There are also some who seem to think these 'he said, she said' situations only go one way, and that all women are frail, innocent little virginal flowers needing male protection. You could not be more wrong.
Unfortunately, there are still women who have no compunction about conniving, or crying wolf, if it suits them. To them, that's a form of power, albeit a deceptive, pathetic one. To even consider toppling another's career, there had better be more than revenge or money in the offing, otherwise karma will be coming your way.
Cuomo should be judged fairly, and not by a court of (misguided) opinion. Nor should his long-term job competence be negated in order for others to try to oust him *for* that job.
Have you considered the possibility that carving out this exception to 230, however well intended and sincerely and earnestly defended, will make platforms less cooperative in helping law enforcement find and catch the criminals posting the material? Not a foregone conclusion, but still a possibility that should be treated seriously. The same goals can be achieved without eroding section 230, IMHO. By framing everyone who even questions the specific change you advocate as somehow defending child rape, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face, regardless.
The argument here isn't about if Cuomo should go. Obviously he should. The argument is about the press's double standard as to when a Republican commits an infraction vs. a Democrat. Eric's piece simply points out that the NYT and mainstream media were largely silent while Trump attempted to overthrow our democracy. And Franken did apologize. He need not have stepped down.
Don’t forget that at the same time the media was clutching its pearls when the accusations first arose involving Cuomo, Madison Cawthorn of NC was also accused of sexual harassment. Did the press cover both equally? Hell no. Cawthorn, like Jim Jordan before him, got a pass while they piled on Cuomo.
I keep waiting for a press investigation into what Jim Jordan did/didn’t know about sexual abuse while he was the wrestling coach for how many years? REALLY? Sure sounds fishy to me. Al Franken being pushed out of the Senate was a debacle. His constituents wanted him to stay. Wish he would run again. I don’t care about the whining - he was stellar.
I'm not sure if "being a much lower profile politician" matters. He's still in Congress. He was in DC on January 6th and helped incite the insurrection. At least what Cuomo is accused of only affects the women he allegedly "abused"... In my book, an unwanted kiss or inappropriate touching is a far cry from being party to trying to overthrow the government.
Oops. Just pointing out the sensitivity to me/women re: any assault. It’s taken a long time to get to this place when women are believed. Sorry to be patronizing.
I noticed that the calls for Cuomo's resignation began months ago, and I wondered aloud about why we heard nothing from most press outlets calling for Trump to resign when it became obvious that he was committing crimes as president. Then I started thinking about both Cuomo Clinton, and I realized why they clamored for both their resignations or impeachments - it's about sex. Both men are perceived as sexual predators who abused their political offices to prey on women. Then I realized that Trump has done exactly the same thing, using his wealth and celebrity status to assault at least a dozen women, and his presidential pulpit on Twitter to insult and humiliate them. But then, to avoid the "liberal media" label, the two Democrats are the ones to be pilloried, not the swine Trump. Ironically, the NY Times has written devastating pieces about Trump, particularly his financial malfeasance, but even then they have refrained from calling for him to resign.
He still is. The Washington Post depended on Trump to sustain its readership numbers for 5 years, and they still do, to a rather sickening degree. They love sensationalism, and the Trump stories wrote themselves. Now we're going to see 5 articles a day for the next 2 weeks about Cuomo.
What a confusing website, I changed my password twice and still could not return to the comment I previously wrote so that I could post it.
Anyway - basically, the NY Times' cowardice toward Trump might simply be due to their amazing ability to publish report after report of Trump's crimes documented in some excellent investigative journalism while fearing him much more than they feared Clinton or fear Cuomo. Neither Democrat can rise to the level of malevolence that Trump has been living by all his life (and Fred Trump before him). In fact, fear has kept quite a few mainstream media outlets from reporting honestly about Trump, at the very least due to "liberal bias."
I believe that fear is only an explanation at all if it is unfounded. Otherwise it's just another term for "non-suicidal" or "intelligent". You know already I don't think the problem is the media, or even the Republicons, but the innate postmodernism of the entire populace that leaves everyone certain of their own logic and unable to see the reason in any dissenting opinion.
Then what would happen if dozens, or more of the largest or most respected papers, here and abroad, joined together to voice concern about the corruption of Trump, or any 'leader', or topic critically important or dangerous to the 'People'? Is that possible or useful?
The first outlet that defects gains a competitive advantage. The 4th Estate's role is to report on events, not to conspire and exercise a collective veto on what events are good or bad. That said, I agree with you and Eric that every single outlet that doesn't knowingly cater to bigots should have denounced Trump abjectly and constantly until he left office and was sent to prison.
It would never happen, simply because each media outlet is expected or presumed to be independent, not in cahoots with others. The press already has a credibility problem.
To those who cling to the idea that the NYT has credibility left, this commentary shatters it. A glaring contrast and brilliantly constructed; thanks for once again highlighting its hypocrisy.
What a contrast between the pearl clutching coverage of Bill Clinton and the "Oh well, that's Trump being Trump" attitude we've seen from 2015 through now. Clinton lied about Monica in a lawsuit that was politically motivated and funded, and the DC press got the vapors. In retrospect, the horror expressed about Clinton "embarrassing the presidency and the country" is quaint given the boatload of crap Trump dished (and dishes) out on a regular basis. The media gave George HW Bush a pass for being neck deep in Iran-Conrtra and then piled on Clinton, and now, after giving Trump a pass, the required pile on falls on Andrew Cuomo. As Eric Alterman has often put it, "WHAT liberal media?"
Google says: "pearl-clutching 1. adjective Scandalized or mortified about some event, situation, thing, etc., that was once salacious but is now relatively common; morally conservative, stuffy, prudish, or unfashionable." When everything is deemed misogynistic NOTHING is misogynistic. Conflating consensual affairs with sexual assault ultimately minimizes sexual assault - to the delight of the true pigs.
Sorry Charley. Monica may have consented but she was not in the power position. She was a very young woman enamored by POTUS. He was just horny, needy and stupid. His behavior certainly damaged Monica forever. For me, comparing which assault is more egregious is a fool’s errand. The same applies to Cuomo’s behavior vs Trump’s. They’re all pigs.
I'm not defending Clinton's indefensible behavior. I was furious with him for his stupidity, which not only derailed his 2nd term but likely factored in to Al Gore not winning the presidency. I stand by my point, which apparently was knocked out of orbit because I used a rather common NEUTRAL (or so I thought) expression about faux outrage, and how the media covered a president they did not like and did not fear, as opposed to a president they didn't like but do fear.
Agree with your last sentence. We might be talking past each other, clutching of pearls to me is a great expression and paints a great picture in one’s head. Am I missing something?
Not to re-litigate, but Monica trusted and confided in Linda Tripp, who ran to Lucy (Lucianne?) Goldberg (Jonah's mom) who was looking for "book material," and both of those women used Monica for their own purposes. At the end of the proverbial day, both Monica and Paula Jones were used by shameless Republican operatives (like Ann Coulter and her fellow "elves") to bring down Bill Clinton. Of course there would have been nothing for Goldberg, Coulter and their ilk to use if Bill would have behaved in the first place.
Yup, I know the Tripp, et al., history. I just question Monica's need to share in the first place (ok, that's probably where her immaturity is at its worst). Had she a few more smarts, she'd have waited until the end of his term.
Ancient history, and silly by international standards at the time. Other countries' male leaders would fairly flaunt their mistresses. Still not cool, but never a matter of degree of governance.
In Drumpf's case, being a puppet handled by a megalomaniac with rubles to burn and a Redumblican party + in his pocket, he was seen as a total moron not even worthy of bringing down for his sexual indiscretions, until it was too late and covid then became THE issue. DC knew there would be much more to fry him with, though, in the end.
I was falsely accused of hitting a student when I taught school a million years ago and lived through 6 months of hell defending myself. Was hauled into court, tried and found not guilty. So I get the anger expressed in your piece. No one should have to go through that. I still have scars to show from the experience.
I came up in the 50s and 60s when ‘boys will be boys’ was the cute mantra; I was forcefully pushed up against a wall for sex when I was 19 by a blind date, scared to death, until he finally relented. I was helpless in the moment. And after, no where to go to complain; no one to think that was a big deal. It was just the way it was. Scars once more 50 years later. I have other similar tales to tell.
Of course not all men are pigs. My husband never was nor are any of the men I know and love and I’m certain you are in that category. But for way too long, it seemed that women were NEVER believed and men ALWAYS were. I’m a strong woman but it was no fun being harassed in big and small ways. Yes, I could handle myself, but why did I have to? When Al Franken was driven out of the senate, my hair was on fire about the ridiculousness of the accusations. And Tara Read was outed as a sick cookie, not to be believed. Unfair to Biden, it at least the topic was aired and dismissed as crap.
Of course there are degrees of ‘harassment’ and some complaints are bogus. It’s not fair to try Cuomo in the public arena, but he’s a big boy and he signed onto a big, important job. I think he is in denial about the impact of his actions on the YOUNG women he interacted with. And I would argue that at 20 something, Monica was a victim too. Clinton and Cuomo were/are in power positions and abused that power. Each was tried in the press and we all had lots of opinions. Cuomo is not in prison and has not been tried yet, true, but he’s in the public arena and opinions are for free. He’s a big boy, let the process play out and see where the truth lies. My sympathies don’t lie with him.
I am prepared to take the heat for not joining in the calls for Cuomo to resign; if you think he's scum, don't vote for him, or wait for legal actions, not just a report from his political detractors. But am I the only one who noticed that in this entire piece, Eric never even mentioned Trump's far more damning and far more well-founded sexual assaults? I can understand it might be that those incidents weren't while he was in elected office, (the ones we know about, nobody ever interviewed every woman who worked for him, and just what were Hope Hicks' qualifications again?). Except for the unmitigated fact he ignored a court order to provide DNA (a simple cheek swab, not a sperm sample) that would have proved he didn't rape someone, while he was in charge of the Federal government?
The whole country was aware of the allegations against Trump in 2016, but were more riveted by James Comey reopening the investigation of Hillary Clinton's e-mails six days before the election. What do you think about that? The Access Hollywood tape, and later the payoffs to porn stars and sex workers during Trump's 2016 campaign? And for heaven's sake, nobody ever asked Trump for a "sperm sample."
What we're talking about here is essentially that it should not matter whether a man commits a crime before he took political office, as though getting elected somehow exonerates him from all culpability for his actions up until that point. Perhaps thee actual problem here is that there are so many men in society who don't see rape, sexual assault and sexual menacing as serious crimes.
Letitia James is the Attorney General in NY, and she is not a "political detractor." She did her job.
You seem intent on misreading what I wrote in order to mischaracterize my position. Because "so many men don't see rape as serious", every untoward advance or comment must be treated as grievous? You think James is not a political detractor of Cuomo's because she's also a Democrat? Your poor reasoning on both these issues makes your position on the problem of mysogeny less reasonable and less convincing, and that is a problem for me because I'm opposed to mysogeny, and folks like you make it harder for folks like me to convince folks like Republicons it is a real and important issue. My opposition to mysogeny does not require an irrational belief that every act of mysogeny is criminal behavior, or demand an otherwise competent elected official resign rather than reform. I'll join you in insisting that Cuomo leave office immediately the moment he loses a civil suit, let alone a criminal verdict.
Time for you to try to comprehend that young women aren't the only people who have had to deal with offensive and boorish and even menacing bosses. I haven't combed through the reporting, but I don't recall any accusations of retribution against any women who complained about his behavior. I share your concern for them and with the system if they felt unable to complain at all, but I'd need evidence their concerns were specific and factual before assuming they were valid enough to justify calling for a governor's resignation. I'm not minimizing the tremendous burden and very well justified, often traumatic fear that women have to cope with, though it isn't the only burden or fear that anyone faces. I'm just pointing out that over-reacting to less grievous incidents as if they were more grievous, under the mistaken notion that constant and extreme outrage is the most productive strategy, is doing more harm than good, even for and to those specific women, let alone society at large. If you think Cuomo is scum and that's disqualifying, don't vote for him.
Resorting to competitive grievance and vague demonizing rhetoric like "drain the swamp" does not substantiate your position nearly as much as you clearly want it to. The specifics of the accusations simply do not indicate a significant enough problem for resignation. I understand why will be upset by the very idea that any untoward behavior by a man with more power than a women with less would be categorized as "not signifcant" or "not enough of a problem", but you aren't really helping the cause against mysogeny by pretending that all sins are equally damning.
Hate to admit it, but if having an honest discussion with someone is "mansplaining" just because of our respective genders, your 'advocacy' is even more damaging than I fear.
I appreciate that, but it seems like an admission that it isn't "mansplaining" you're referring to, just expressing an opinion that is reasonable and well informed to a degree you for some reason find objectionable. I'm not a fan of the timid uncertainty and weasel words that most people use to make their opinions unfalsifiable, and I have no aversion to anyone expressing contrary opinions, as long as they, too, are well reasoned and honestly justifiable
Sorry, but this is ridiculous. There has never been any doubt as to where the NY Times stood regarding Trump. Their news items and editorials were quite critical of him from the beginning, and the paper supported both impeachments. If there is any particular reason they didn't specifically call on him to resign, it's probably because they knew it would be futile to do so.
At this point, the Times is merely holding Cuomo to his own conditions. When the allegations surfaced, he lectured the press about waiting until the investigation was completed. Well, now it has been.
There is no reason ANY Democrat should be defending Cuomo. This is not an Al Franken situation. Many of the women who have accused Cuomo were close aides for many, many years, and many had resolved never to come forward, but did so after Cuomo and his allies began trying to trash the reputations of those who initially did.
We on the left are (rightly) quick to point out whenever those on the right engage in "whataboutism." This is but another form of it!
I am less inclined to be critical of the editorial page on this one because the news side so completely blew it. But I'm more inclined to be critical of the editorial page because they fed off of each other. Here's what I mean. When Howell Raines ran the editorial page, he was contemptuous toward Clinton. When Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., met with Clinton, who complained about it, Sulzberger said, "We believe in tough love." Clinton said, "I've seen the tough. Where's the love?" But we forget a line from a long-ago Times editor, Frederick Birchall, who said, let me control the headlines and I won't care about the editorials. The Times made a mountain out of Whitewater, which didn't even rise to the level of a molehill.
And then, they did it again to Hillary Clinton in 2016, and put simply, only CNN, among supposed news-gathering organizations, may have done more to put Orange Hitler in the White House than The New York Times did. And that goes beyond the editorial page.
Trump's lifelong mastery of bullying, with both a soft and a harsh tone, may have a role in this contradiction. I agree with the other subscribers who landed on fear of Trump's tirades. The Times didn't need to jump in this early, if at all. Cuomo's petard has got it covered. Eric, you have caught them out grandstanding. Again.
Lol dems like u are fucking hilarious. You're really no better than MAGA hats when it comes to sexual harrassment and assault. Believe women UNLESS they speak out against someone I like. And btw Eric, if a major news organization came calling and offered u a job You'd jump at the chance so all this press is bad schtick u have going on is laughable.
I lost brain cells reading this . If you want trump to be charged. Ask the women to file a police report and open a investigation ... Why are you guys so triggered and deflecting ? BuT TrUmp... Do you crackheads really believe if there was ACTUAL evidence against trump. You libtards wouldn't go full blast to exploit it ? LOL ... Nobody in the history of the world has had their lives looked at the way Trump has... I'll say it again for your triggered Libtards.... If you believe TRUMP is guilty. Tell the women to OPEN a Police Report. Dumbocrats have WH, House , Senate... Open a investigation ... What are you morons waiting for ? Oh yea its all hearsay and nonsense to smear trump ... You had nothing while he was in office and you have nothing now... But atleast articles like this we get to see how triggered you libtards are and how you deflect from Cuomo to TRUMP LOL... Pathetic Sad Losers
Yeah but it's not like Trump was ever accused of sexually harassing women. Oh wait...
The double standard is so obvious it's painful. The problem is that the media knows the Democrats will do the right thing and in this case, it's to agree that Cuomo step down for obvious sexual transgressions. The Republicans on the other hand always put up a fight, regardless of how glaring the evidence, especially in the case of Trump. Geez, the Times and the WaPo are still defending Trump by not printing in their largest typeface on their front pages daily that Trump should be indicted immediately. Matt Gaetz, you stay, Cuomo, you go. Trump you stay, Al Franken, get out for good because of a photo taken while employed as a comedian.
GOP will defend anything, literally. snd in bizarre way press respects that
Um... what's obvious? Has any Cuomo accuser taken an oath and sworn testimony yet?
It was encouraging to see virtually all Dems call out Cuomo
Which Dems? Not even "virtually" from what I've been reading in the nonrag world. Especially when it comes to New Yorkers, whose place it is, more, to determine what's at stake and the weight it actually carries in real life.
And as for anyone else, a citizen accused of whatever 'crime' is due their day in court. This debacle deserves more nuanced perspective than the hasty, oddly timed, hatchet job it's been given.
If folks can't smell the sewer rats behind this railroading of a nonissue that has (for obvious reasons) come to the fore post Tя☭mp, then they're either sensory deprived or riding the drumpf train.
And to every male assuming all females who encounter males (boss or not) who make any show of attraction, or feeling, are incapable of holding their own, you're way off the mark.
Present feminist movements may have gone somewhat off course with bandwagon jumping and knee jerking but, believe me, there are plenty of us out in the world and workforce who know the difference between harassment, bullying, flirting, and testing the waters. We also know how to deal with it, ward it off, or see it coming and signal 'no go' from the get go. It's about pride and self-esteem, in addition to recognizing disparities among colleagues.
There are also some who seem to think these 'he said, she said' situations only go one way, and that all women are frail, innocent little virginal flowers needing male protection. You could not be more wrong.
Unfortunately, there are still women who have no compunction about conniving, or crying wolf, if it suits them. To them, that's a form of power, albeit a deceptive, pathetic one. To even consider toppling another's career, there had better be more than revenge or money in the offing, otherwise karma will be coming your way.
Cuomo should be judged fairly, and not by a court of (misguided) opinion. Nor should his long-term job competence be negated in order for others to try to oust him *for* that job.
Have you considered the possibility that carving out this exception to 230, however well intended and sincerely and earnestly defended, will make platforms less cooperative in helping law enforcement find and catch the criminals posting the material? Not a foregone conclusion, but still a possibility that should be treated seriously. The same goals can be achieved without eroding section 230, IMHO. By framing everyone who even questions the specific change you advocate as somehow defending child rape, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face, regardless.
The argument here isn't about if Cuomo should go. Obviously he should. The argument is about the press's double standard as to when a Republican commits an infraction vs. a Democrat. Eric's piece simply points out that the NYT and mainstream media were largely silent while Trump attempted to overthrow our democracy. And Franken did apologize. He need not have stepped down.
Don’t forget that at the same time the media was clutching its pearls when the accusations first arose involving Cuomo, Madison Cawthorn of NC was also accused of sexual harassment. Did the press cover both equally? Hell no. Cawthorn, like Jim Jordan before him, got a pass while they piled on Cuomo.
I keep waiting for a press investigation into what Jim Jordan did/didn’t know about sexual abuse while he was the wrestling coach for how many years? REALLY? Sure sounds fishy to me. Al Franken being pushed out of the Senate was a debacle. His constituents wanted him to stay. Wish he would run again. I don’t care about the whining - he was stellar.
I'm not sure if "being a much lower profile politician" matters. He's still in Congress. He was in DC on January 6th and helped incite the insurrection. At least what Cuomo is accused of only affects the women he allegedly "abused"... In my book, an unwanted kiss or inappropriate touching is a far cry from being party to trying to overthrow the government.
Sorry JerrBier, not a great analogy tho I get your point. I’d argue w/ your sentence “only effects ..... til the close. Caused me to cringe 😬.
Sorry that my analogies don't live up to your standards... I'll leave that up to your superior analogy expertise and the author from now on.
Oops. Just pointing out the sensitivity to me/women re: any assault. It’s taken a long time to get to this place when women are believed. Sorry to be patronizing.
Problem is: "women are believed".....even if they're not telling the truth. Tara Reade ring a bell?
I noticed that the calls for Cuomo's resignation began months ago, and I wondered aloud about why we heard nothing from most press outlets calling for Trump to resign when it became obvious that he was committing crimes as president. Then I started thinking about both Cuomo Clinton, and I realized why they clamored for both their resignations or impeachments - it's about sex. Both men are perceived as sexual predators who abused their political offices to prey on women. Then I realized that Trump has done exactly the same thing, using his wealth and celebrity status to assault at least a dozen women, and his presidential pulpit on Twitter to insult and humiliate them. But then, to avoid the "liberal media" label, the two Democrats are the ones to be pilloried, not the swine Trump. Ironically, the NY Times has written devastating pieces about Trump, particularly his financial malfeasance, but even then they have refrained from calling for him to resign.
agreed, Trump’s sexual predator history is 10x what’s been documented re: Cuomo or Clinton
He still is. The Washington Post depended on Trump to sustain its readership numbers for 5 years, and they still do, to a rather sickening degree. They love sensationalism, and the Trump stories wrote themselves. Now we're going to see 5 articles a day for the next 2 weeks about Cuomo.
What a confusing website, I changed my password twice and still could not return to the comment I previously wrote so that I could post it.
Anyway - basically, the NY Times' cowardice toward Trump might simply be due to their amazing ability to publish report after report of Trump's crimes documented in some excellent investigative journalism while fearing him much more than they feared Clinton or fear Cuomo. Neither Democrat can rise to the level of malevolence that Trump has been living by all his life (and Fred Trump before him). In fact, fear has kept quite a few mainstream media outlets from reporting honestly about Trump, at the very least due to "liberal bias."
agree, fear explains a lot of media failures re/ Trump
I believe that fear is only an explanation at all if it is unfounded. Otherwise it's just another term for "non-suicidal" or "intelligent". You know already I don't think the problem is the media, or even the Republicons, but the innate postmodernism of the entire populace that leaves everyone certain of their own logic and unable to see the reason in any dissenting opinion.
Then what would happen if dozens, or more of the largest or most respected papers, here and abroad, joined together to voice concern about the corruption of Trump, or any 'leader', or topic critically important or dangerous to the 'People'? Is that possible or useful?
The first outlet that defects gains a competitive advantage. The 4th Estate's role is to report on events, not to conspire and exercise a collective veto on what events are good or bad. That said, I agree with you and Eric that every single outlet that doesn't knowingly cater to bigots should have denounced Trump abjectly and constantly until he left office and was sent to prison.
It would never happen, simply because each media outlet is expected or presumed to be independent, not in cahoots with others. The press already has a credibility problem.
Not to mention they’re competitors.
That would be the beauty of it.
To those who cling to the idea that the NYT has credibility left, this commentary shatters it. A glaring contrast and brilliantly constructed; thanks for once again highlighting its hypocrisy.
What a contrast between the pearl clutching coverage of Bill Clinton and the "Oh well, that's Trump being Trump" attitude we've seen from 2015 through now. Clinton lied about Monica in a lawsuit that was politically motivated and funded, and the DC press got the vapors. In retrospect, the horror expressed about Clinton "embarrassing the presidency and the country" is quaint given the boatload of crap Trump dished (and dishes) out on a regular basis. The media gave George HW Bush a pass for being neck deep in Iran-Conrtra and then piled on Clinton, and now, after giving Trump a pass, the required pile on falls on Andrew Cuomo. As Eric Alterman has often put it, "WHAT liberal media?"
Google says: "pearl-clutching 1. adjective Scandalized or mortified about some event, situation, thing, etc., that was once salacious but is now relatively common; morally conservative, stuffy, prudish, or unfashionable." When everything is deemed misogynistic NOTHING is misogynistic. Conflating consensual affairs with sexual assault ultimately minimizes sexual assault - to the delight of the true pigs.
Sorry Charley. Monica may have consented but she was not in the power position. She was a very young woman enamored by POTUS. He was just horny, needy and stupid. His behavior certainly damaged Monica forever. For me, comparing which assault is more egregious is a fool’s errand. The same applies to Cuomo’s behavior vs Trump’s. They’re all pigs.
I'm not defending Clinton's indefensible behavior. I was furious with him for his stupidity, which not only derailed his 2nd term but likely factored in to Al Gore not winning the presidency. I stand by my point, which apparently was knocked out of orbit because I used a rather common NEUTRAL (or so I thought) expression about faux outrage, and how the media covered a president they did not like and did not fear, as opposed to a president they didn't like but do fear.
Agree with your last sentence. We might be talking past each other, clutching of pearls to me is a great expression and paints a great picture in one’s head. Am I missing something?
Oh, stop it. She knew what she was doing. So did he. So effing what.
They BOTH made a dumb mistake, but mostly because she opened her mouth about it.
Try living in the real world......
Not to re-litigate, but Monica trusted and confided in Linda Tripp, who ran to Lucy (Lucianne?) Goldberg (Jonah's mom) who was looking for "book material," and both of those women used Monica for their own purposes. At the end of the proverbial day, both Monica and Paula Jones were used by shameless Republican operatives (like Ann Coulter and her fellow "elves") to bring down Bill Clinton. Of course there would have been nothing for Goldberg, Coulter and their ilk to use if Bill would have behaved in the first place.
Yup, I know the Tripp, et al., history. I just question Monica's need to share in the first place (ok, that's probably where her immaturity is at its worst). Had she a few more smarts, she'd have waited until the end of his term.
Ancient history, and silly by international standards at the time. Other countries' male leaders would fairly flaunt their mistresses. Still not cool, but never a matter of degree of governance.
In Drumpf's case, being a puppet handled by a megalomaniac with rubles to burn and a Redumblican party + in his pocket, he was seen as a total moron not even worthy of bringing down for his sexual indiscretions, until it was too late and covid then became THE issue. DC knew there would be much more to fry him with, though, in the end.
He was a pig. No doubt.
What is he now?
I was falsely accused of hitting a student when I taught school a million years ago and lived through 6 months of hell defending myself. Was hauled into court, tried and found not guilty. So I get the anger expressed in your piece. No one should have to go through that. I still have scars to show from the experience.
I came up in the 50s and 60s when ‘boys will be boys’ was the cute mantra; I was forcefully pushed up against a wall for sex when I was 19 by a blind date, scared to death, until he finally relented. I was helpless in the moment. And after, no where to go to complain; no one to think that was a big deal. It was just the way it was. Scars once more 50 years later. I have other similar tales to tell.
Of course not all men are pigs. My husband never was nor are any of the men I know and love and I’m certain you are in that category. But for way too long, it seemed that women were NEVER believed and men ALWAYS were. I’m a strong woman but it was no fun being harassed in big and small ways. Yes, I could handle myself, but why did I have to? When Al Franken was driven out of the senate, my hair was on fire about the ridiculousness of the accusations. And Tara Read was outed as a sick cookie, not to be believed. Unfair to Biden, it at least the topic was aired and dismissed as crap.
Of course there are degrees of ‘harassment’ and some complaints are bogus. It’s not fair to try Cuomo in the public arena, but he’s a big boy and he signed onto a big, important job. I think he is in denial about the impact of his actions on the YOUNG women he interacted with. And I would argue that at 20 something, Monica was a victim too. Clinton and Cuomo were/are in power positions and abused that power. Each was tried in the press and we all had lots of opinions. Cuomo is not in prison and has not been tried yet, true, but he’s in the public arena and opinions are for free. He’s a big boy, let the process play out and see where the truth lies. My sympathies don’t lie with him.
An old pig?
I am prepared to take the heat for not joining in the calls for Cuomo to resign; if you think he's scum, don't vote for him, or wait for legal actions, not just a report from his political detractors. But am I the only one who noticed that in this entire piece, Eric never even mentioned Trump's far more damning and far more well-founded sexual assaults? I can understand it might be that those incidents weren't while he was in elected office, (the ones we know about, nobody ever interviewed every woman who worked for him, and just what were Hope Hicks' qualifications again?). Except for the unmitigated fact he ignored a court order to provide DNA (a simple cheek swab, not a sperm sample) that would have proved he didn't rape someone, while he was in charge of the Federal government?
The whole country was aware of the allegations against Trump in 2016, but were more riveted by James Comey reopening the investigation of Hillary Clinton's e-mails six days before the election. What do you think about that? The Access Hollywood tape, and later the payoffs to porn stars and sex workers during Trump's 2016 campaign? And for heaven's sake, nobody ever asked Trump for a "sperm sample."
What we're talking about here is essentially that it should not matter whether a man commits a crime before he took political office, as though getting elected somehow exonerates him from all culpability for his actions up until that point. Perhaps thee actual problem here is that there are so many men in society who don't see rape, sexual assault and sexual menacing as serious crimes.
Letitia James is the Attorney General in NY, and she is not a "political detractor." She did her job.
You seem intent on misreading what I wrote in order to mischaracterize my position. Because "so many men don't see rape as serious", every untoward advance or comment must be treated as grievous? You think James is not a political detractor of Cuomo's because she's also a Democrat? Your poor reasoning on both these issues makes your position on the problem of mysogeny less reasonable and less convincing, and that is a problem for me because I'm opposed to mysogeny, and folks like you make it harder for folks like me to convince folks like Republicons it is a real and important issue. My opposition to mysogeny does not require an irrational belief that every act of mysogeny is criminal behavior, or demand an otherwise competent elected official resign rather than reform. I'll join you in insisting that Cuomo leave office immediately the moment he loses a civil suit, let alone a criminal verdict.
Time for you to walk in the shoes of the young women who were abused by Cuomo. Respectfully.
Time for you to try to comprehend that young women aren't the only people who have had to deal with offensive and boorish and even menacing bosses. I haven't combed through the reporting, but I don't recall any accusations of retribution against any women who complained about his behavior. I share your concern for them and with the system if they felt unable to complain at all, but I'd need evidence their concerns were specific and factual before assuming they were valid enough to justify calling for a governor's resignation. I'm not minimizing the tremendous burden and very well justified, often traumatic fear that women have to cope with, though it isn't the only burden or fear that anyone faces. I'm just pointing out that over-reacting to less grievous incidents as if they were more grievous, under the mistaken notion that constant and extreme outrage is the most productive strategy, is doing more harm than good, even for and to those specific women, let alone society at large. If you think Cuomo is scum and that's disqualifying, don't vote for him.
Agreed.
Plus there are degrees of difference. All offensive, not all the same. See Al Franken.
Resorting to competitive grievance and vague demonizing rhetoric like "drain the swamp" does not substantiate your position nearly as much as you clearly want it to. The specifics of the accusations simply do not indicate a significant enough problem for resignation. I understand why will be upset by the very idea that any untoward behavior by a man with more power than a women with less would be categorized as "not signifcant" or "not enough of a problem", but you aren't really helping the cause against mysogeny by pretending that all sins are equally damning.
Hate to tell you this T. Max but you are mansplaining to Penny.
Hate to admit it, but if having an honest discussion with someone is "mansplaining" just because of our respective genders, your 'advocacy' is even more damaging than I fear.
One doesn’t rule out the other. Women do it too. I’ll leave it there.
I appreciate that, but it seems like an admission that it isn't "mansplaining" you're referring to, just expressing an opinion that is reasonable and well informed to a degree you for some reason find objectionable. I'm not a fan of the timid uncertainty and weasel words that most people use to make their opinions unfalsifiable, and I have no aversion to anyone expressing contrary opinions, as long as they, too, are well reasoned and honestly justifiable
As always: Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
Call for Trump to resign? They couldn't even characterize his statements as lies for four years.
Sorry, but this is ridiculous. There has never been any doubt as to where the NY Times stood regarding Trump. Their news items and editorials were quite critical of him from the beginning, and the paper supported both impeachments. If there is any particular reason they didn't specifically call on him to resign, it's probably because they knew it would be futile to do so.
At this point, the Times is merely holding Cuomo to his own conditions. When the allegations surfaced, he lectured the press about waiting until the investigation was completed. Well, now it has been.
There is no reason ANY Democrat should be defending Cuomo. This is not an Al Franken situation. Many of the women who have accused Cuomo were close aides for many, many years, and many had resolved never to come forward, but did so after Cuomo and his allies began trying to trash the reputations of those who initially did.
We on the left are (rightly) quick to point out whenever those on the right engage in "whataboutism." This is but another form of it!
A couple of things about this.
I am less inclined to be critical of the editorial page on this one because the news side so completely blew it. But I'm more inclined to be critical of the editorial page because they fed off of each other. Here's what I mean. When Howell Raines ran the editorial page, he was contemptuous toward Clinton. When Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., met with Clinton, who complained about it, Sulzberger said, "We believe in tough love." Clinton said, "I've seen the tough. Where's the love?" But we forget a line from a long-ago Times editor, Frederick Birchall, who said, let me control the headlines and I won't care about the editorials. The Times made a mountain out of Whitewater, which didn't even rise to the level of a molehill.
And then, they did it again to Hillary Clinton in 2016, and put simply, only CNN, among supposed news-gathering organizations, may have done more to put Orange Hitler in the White House than The New York Times did. And that goes beyond the editorial page.
Trump's lifelong mastery of bullying, with both a soft and a harsh tone, may have a role in this contradiction. I agree with the other subscribers who landed on fear of Trump's tirades. The Times didn't need to jump in this early, if at all. Cuomo's petard has got it covered. Eric, you have caught them out grandstanding. Again.
Lol dems like u are fucking hilarious. You're really no better than MAGA hats when it comes to sexual harrassment and assault. Believe women UNLESS they speak out against someone I like. And btw Eric, if a major news organization came calling and offered u a job You'd jump at the chance so all this press is bad schtick u have going on is laughable.
I lost brain cells reading this . If you want trump to be charged. Ask the women to file a police report and open a investigation ... Why are you guys so triggered and deflecting ? BuT TrUmp... Do you crackheads really believe if there was ACTUAL evidence against trump. You libtards wouldn't go full blast to exploit it ? LOL ... Nobody in the history of the world has had their lives looked at the way Trump has... I'll say it again for your triggered Libtards.... If you believe TRUMP is guilty. Tell the women to OPEN a Police Report. Dumbocrats have WH, House , Senate... Open a investigation ... What are you morons waiting for ? Oh yea its all hearsay and nonsense to smear trump ... You had nothing while he was in office and you have nothing now... But atleast articles like this we get to see how triggered you libtards are and how you deflect from Cuomo to TRUMP LOL... Pathetic Sad Losers
We have brain cells but I'm thinking you have none. You have the day God says you deserve to have. Be blessed
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/31/opinion/trump-resign.html
No way in hell would the Screw York Times slam their beloved cash cow Trump!
Not that it wasn’t a great piece. Thanks.