Rich Lowry, writing for the New York Post, has provided us with an excellent roadmap for what appears to be Democrats’ strategy regarding sexual harassment. (Please note that my use of the word “excellent” refers to Mr. Lowry’s exlanation, not the strategy).
A few excerpts:
There are sexual harassers, and then there is John Conyers, the Democrat from Detroit who made his congressional office an adjunct of his libido.
The evidence suggests Conyers believed that as a 27-term congressman he was entitled to the Washingon, DC, equivalent of the Ottoman Imperial Harem.
He routinely hit on his female staffers and his office was a den of sexual intrigue — allegedly featuring a jealous wife and a vindictive mistress — that properly belongs in a Bravo reality show if the network ever extends its “Real Housewives” franchise to Capitol Hill.
A political party is rarely provided an easier test case for its bona fides. Conyers is an 88-year-old man who finds it increasingly difficult to carry out his duties. He holds an exceedingly safe seat that, should he resign, will be taken over by another reliably progressive Democrat. In this case, the political cost to the party of showing that it’s serious about “zero tolerance” for sexual harassment is almost nil.
Yet House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, when asked about Conyers on “Meet the Press,” mumbled and looked at her shoes. She wasn’t able to summon any dudgeon, let alone high dudgeon, about Conyers. The harshest thing she said is that, “as John reviews his case — which he knows, which I don’t — I believe he will do the right thing.”
The controversy over Conyers arrives as some liberal Democrats now say Bill Clinton should’ve resigned as president for his sexual misconduct. Of course, they could’ve said that 20 years ago, or even one year ago. The evasion over Conyers makes it clear that if the Clintons had any political juice left, it would be a very different story.
Whatever Democrats say about sexual harassment should be affixed with a giant asterisk — if it doesn’t suit their political and ideological interests, generous exceptions can and will apply.
Does Mr. Lowry have a point? Is the Democrat strategy to look the other way, and only acknowledge sexual harassment after there is no more political price to pay?
Would Republicans do the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot? Have they?
Plenty to think about here.
It seems most Republicans will not do the same thing, Roy Moore case in point.