politics

kankajpg-f5ceeb5091c57696

International Megan’s Law: A Pretty Terrible Idea

In 1994, 7 year old Megan Kanka was brutally raped and murdered by her 43 year old neighbor, Jesse Timmendequas. The news sent shockwaves across their community and the nation as a whole, not just because the crime was stomach churning, but because Timmendequas was a registered sex offender. The event spawned a series of laws across the nation — often referred to as Megan’s Law — requiring law enforcement to inform the public when a sex offender relocates to their community. On the federal level, Megan’s Law was woven into legislation requiring sex offenders to register with the state and inform the state of any moves for a determined or even infinite amount of time. The whole initiative was an effort to allow the public to protect themselves from known sex offenders.

But that’s not what happened. Instead, sex offenders frequently found themselves hard up for work or even housing as people recoiled at their designation, which ironically exacerbated the likeliness of recidivism. That’s quite a feat, given that recidivism among convicted sex offenders is statistically quite low. Unsurprisingly, there are a number of groups who argue that this practice violates the eighth amendment by punishing an individual in perpetuity for one crime. Instead of public safety, there was a rise in public vigilantes. Stephen Marshall, for instance, sought out two men on the registry and murdered them in cold blood. Michael Dodele was murdered by a local father “in protection of his son” after he discovered Dodele’s conviction, though Dodele’s crime had nothing to do with children.

And there’s another problem here: what we classify as sex crimes. There are some crimes that fit neatly in this category: rape, sexual assault, molestation. But some crimes that classify might be as simple, innocuous and stupid as urinating in public or streaking at a football game. In some cases, even the labels we recognize as legitimately heinous don’t make a ton of sense in context. A 30 year old man who forces himself on a 16 year old girl in an alley, for instance, is not the same as an 18 year old senior in high school having consensual sex with his 16 year old sophomore girlfriend, but on the registry, there often won’t be a distinction.

The sex offender registry is not an inherently terrible idea. Even the Association for Treatment of Sexual Offenders concedes that sexual offenders should be carefully reintegrated into society upon release with ample legal oversight. But until laws and the registration process are reformed, the current process is doing no one any favors.

Which brings us to today, as Congress sends President Obama what is known as an “International Megan’s Law.” This law would require that the State Department conspicuously mark the passports of anyone involved in a sex crime that involved a minor to inform other nations of their risk upon entry.

There are a lot of problems with this. We’ve already talked about how the registry conflates crimes by ignoring crimes; this is worse. Teens sexting each other would end up on this list if convicted. But beyond the fact that its application could end up being unjustly applied, there’s absolutely no evidence this would thwart the human trafficking it claims to target. And if people are being discriminated against with their names listed online, imagine what happens to those who use a passport as a form of identification. To add insult to injury, their supposed purpose is redundant. As Reason explains:

[W]hen it comes to those who have committed the most heinous crimes or are the most likely to reoffend, we already have a mechanisms in place to either prevent them from getting passports or notify foreign governments when they’re traveling abroad. The Secretary of State can deny passports to people convicted of certain sex crimes, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) “Operation Angel Watch” already notifies foreign officials when Americans convicted of certain sex crimes are traveling there.

And the reason ICE knows the travel habits of these sex offenders? Because all people on state sex offender registries—regardless of why they’re there or how long ago their crimes were committed—are required under federal law to “inform his or her residence jurisdiction of any intended travel outside of the United States at least 21 days prior to that travel.”

In other words, the only thing this law would do is exacerbate the harms that already exist in the flawed framework of sex offender registry related laws. Nice, right?

But as the legislation crosses President Obama’s desk, it seems unlikely that it would be vetoed, largely because of optics. How would it look for him to reject legislation that’s supposed to protect children from being raped?

That doesn’t mean we should accept its passage. Sexual violence survivors deserve our support, and if anything, the flaws in the current legal regime trivialize their experience. That a person having sex with someone they’re in high school with is put on the level with a brutal rape is unconscionable. That that same kid be treated with the same disdain reserved for violent rapists for potentially the rest of their natural lives is revolting. We can do better, and should.

Until then, let’s hope Obama’s constitutional law background triumphs over PR inclinations.

 

Iowa.flag_

Breaking Down Iowa: Your Guide to Tonight’s Presidential Caucuses

 

This is it folks. Today marks the kickoff of the glorious political playoffs that come around every four years, and I’m nerding out in a big way. But it’s not just because the primaries are starting; it’s because today’s results have so many important and fascinating dynamics that it’s impossible not to geek out over. Let’s break it down.

Setting the Scene

For starters, the political process unfolding in Iowa is distinctive. Iowans aren’t going to be filing in and out of polling stations across the state all day. Instead, declared party members will gather in precincts across Iowa at 7PM CST and talk about the candidates. Once supporters have made the case for their candidate of choice, participants will separate into groups based on which candidate they back. If one of the candidates fails to garner support from at least 15% of the participants, those who supported them will re-sort themselves into the other candidates’ groups. Once the dust settles, those caucusing will elect delegates to represent their selections. Those numbers are then tallied, and we get the results of the Iowa caucuses.

Caucus

Obviously, the main result we’re waiting for is who wins, but winning Iowa doesn’t guarantee a damn thing. Remember when Santorum won in 2012? Or Huckabee in 2008? Remember that time in 1992 when Bill Clinton only garnered 3% of the vote in Iowa? Today’s results will not be a crystal ball telling us who’s going to be crowned at the conventions this summer, nor who will be inaugurated next January. Don’t fool yourself into thinking they will.

But when you look at who wins, and by how much, and by whom, and relative to whom, Iowa matters in so many ways. The best way to understand this is by looking and what’s happening with each party.

State of the Republican Field

The GOP and Iowa are in an interesting position right now. With so many players vying for votes, many of the traditional election dynamics seen in past cycles are out the window. There’s more than one way to win and more than one way to lose this year.

The first person to look at is Trump. He’s held the lead for weeks and leads heavily among those who would be first time caucus goers. A win is expected, with Nate Silver saying he’s got a 46% chance of coming out on top — significant odds given the number of candidates competing.

Trump and Falwell

Right behind him is Cruz, who has tried desperately to paint himself as the religious, far right candidate of choice for Republicans in this cycle. That narrative took a hit when Jerry Falwell Jr. and Sarah Palin endorsed Trump, but Cruz has taken that disappointment and pumped it into an aggressive ground game. Though he trails behind prior Iowa champs Santorum and Huckabee in the number of events he’s done in the state, today he will be completing what’s known as the “Full Grassley” — an attempt to get up close and personal with voters in all 99 Iowa counties.

Senator Cruz and Senator Grassley

Cruz and Trump are within five points of each other, with Marco Rubio coming in ten points behind Cruz in the latest poll by the Des Moines Register — often regarded as a solid predictor of the caucuses’ outcome. Carson trails with only 10% and Rand Paul rounds out the top five with a mere 5%.  Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum and John Kasich are all floundering below in single digits.

What happens if these polls accurately reflect the outcome at the end of the night? The answer is different for each side of the spectrum.

Though a huge loss in Iowa might have prompted candidates to drop out in past election cycles, those at the bottom of the list now are unlikely to do so. With so many candidates duking it out and money flying around wildly as influencers try to place their bets in what’s proven to be a very volatile electoral season, there’s just not a big incentive to pull out.

This is particularly true for five candidates. Santorum and Huckabee are well known for staying in races far past their expiration date. Paul is hoping that his ground game with younger voters will surprise people in a fashion similar to the Sanders surge. Kasich is hoping that all the candidates trying to out-conservative each other will leave him as the last reasonable (hah!) man standing. Bush has a war chest so big and backers with pockets so deep that Iowa won’t be enough to push him out.

In other words, a lot of the candidates are thinking that in a campaign this wild and unruly, you might as well stick around and see what happens. There are three candidates, however, who might consider dropping out if they crash in Iowa.

The first is Fiorina. Despite surging in popularity during early Republican debates, she has since plummeted in the polls to the point of near obscurity. If she’s really the shrewd business woman she says she is, she has to know the writing’s on the wall, especially if Iowa goes the way it’s looking like it will.

The second is Christie. He’s doing better than Fiorina in most polls, and has shown up in a big way in recent GOP debates, but no matter how many shining moments he accumulates, he can’t seem to pull ahead. Though his stated policies are extreme, his record is at least somewhat pragmatic. He makes decisions that make sense for his own survival. A poor showing in Iowa may cause those survival instincts to kick in, making him realize it’s time to bow out.

The last is Carson. Yes, he’s polling in the top 5 right now, but that doesn’t mean a whole lot. His fundraising momentum is dwindling. The supporters that do back him aren’t what you’d call enthusiastic. He’s had a rough couple months, being criticized by his own advisers for being clueless about foreign policy and faced a staff exodus in December. If he gets beaten by margins even wider than what the current polls show, he could be done for.

Speaking of margins, when you look at the top of the spectrum, that’s what may matter most. While Trump is predicted to win, the amount by which he wins could play a substantial role in the money given to Rubio or Cruz in the coming weeks and months. It could also significantly influence who gets endorsed by candidates exiting the field. Those margins will send a message, however flimsy the backing may be, about who is best positioned to beat Trump — one of the driving concerns of establishment Republicans. At this point, they’re just hoping it’s not Cruz. Rubio seems to be the trending pick, quite the upset for the prior heir apparent, Bush. Tonight will decide if that trend continues.

rubio

In interviews today, Rubio has come off as quietly stoic, as though he’s not expecting to win, and that’s probably pretty fair. Cruz, on the other hand, is fighting hard, and if his efforts are successful, he may deal one helluva blow to Trump. Though Trump has been really good at drumming up excitement, one of the concerns has been that he doesn’t understand the ground game or the mechanics of a solid campaign. If Cruz wins, it will be because he knows how to play and played well, which would add steam to the narrative that Trump is a caricature and not a candidate. In the end, this is about turnout for both Trump and Cruz, with the central question being what works better: hype or hoofing?

Turnout in general will be interesting to watch for Republicans, who have historically turned out in smaller numbers than Democrats to caucus in Iowa. The heat associated with this electoral season could bring out many more voters to caucus than ever before, which could have larger implications for the general election, where turnout will likely be a deciding factor in which party gets the presidency.

Even more interesting will be the demographics of those voters and the ways in which they align. The party is frequently seen as being what Rand Paul has referred to as, “lily white.” Will more minorities show up? What will the age split be? Who will these different segments of the population support? The answers to these questions may be extrapolated to implicate the size and scope of the base for upcoming primaries and the general, and shift electability conversations surrounding the candidates that stay in the game.

Perhaps the most important demographic for the GOP at this moment is the Religious Right. The conservative faithful have been a force to be reckoned with since the days of segregation, and in the past, they’ve backed the most religious candidates in the field; Santorum and Huckabee’s wins, for instance, are largely credited to the evangelical pull in Iowa. But in this election, Trump — despite having a religious message that can be described as discombobulated at best — is polling very well with religious conservatives. If they back him as substantially as the polls indicate, this may be a wake-up call for campaigns like Cruz’s who have been banging the Bible in hopes of waking voters.

State of the Democratic Field

The Democratic field, on the surface, may seem downright dull in comparison to the circus unfolding on the right. But it might be more accurate to say that the competition is more about depth than breadth. There are technically three candidates in the ring, but O’Malley is so, so, so far out of the realm of possibilities that I’m not even going to go there.

The Des Moines Register poll speaks to a two horse race between Clinton and Sanders, with Clinton holding a 3% lead over Sanders. Other polls, like the Quinnipiac poll, have Sanders in the lead, but there’s one thing that’s consistent across all of the polls: Sanders and Clinton are within the margin of error of each other. That’s how close this thing is.

On paper, the two candidates don’t have a lot of differences. Indeed, it’s unlikely that concrete issues will determine how the vote swings this evening. Instead, it’s likely to be sentiment regarding which candidate can be trusted to get things done.

Clinton may seem to have the advantage here. She fought ferociously on health care as First Lady, served in the Senate, and though she lost her presidential bid in 2008 to Barack Obama, she did end up as Secretary of State. It’s an accomplished resume, to be sure. Speaking last night in Iowa, her passion was the highest we’ve seen from her on the campaign trail yet.

RTX24R5H-1024x506

The Sanders resume isn’t light either, though. He was a civil rights activist in his youth, marching with Martin Luther King Jr. and actually getting arrested in Chicago for opposing segregation. He served as Mayor of Burlington from 1981 to 1989, then in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1991 to 2007, and then headed to the Senate in 2007 where he’s been ever since.

Though the Clinton campaign has insisted experience is the central question in the election, that’s really not the case in fact or sentiment. What it comes down to are the impressions generated by their experience.

Clinton is dogged with questions regarding her trustworthiness. Most Democrats roll their eyes at the theatrics of the Benghazi investigations, but the subsequent email scandal may have teeth, not necessarily because she used a personal email address, but because she may have been giving favor to influencers who contributed to the Clinton Foundation. Others feel uneasy about her ties to Wall Street and the Washington elite. Still others have a bad taste in their mouth from her husband’s tenure; one of the more slimy comments passed around is that she stayed with her husband out of political convenience.

Sanders, on the other hand, is often derided for being too extreme. A self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist, he is aggressively progressive, and has often alienated potential allies by being a vocal critic of both parties. His campaign has him looking a lot like Howard Beale in Network, with his supporters hanging out their social media windows to yell, “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”

Sanders

The Clinton campaign has seized on this trend, saying this election comes down to evolution or revolution. Brass tacks? Clinton contends that a more centrist approach of building upon the successes we’ve already won is the only path forward in such a polarized political environment. Sanders argues that while those successes have been positive, they form an unsteady foundation, and the challenges we face today require a far bolder approach than the one Clinton is willing to embrace.

Sanders says he can change things, Hillary says he can’t. But that’s why Iowa matters so very much for the Democrats. The turnout demographics will help answer who’s right on this question.

While Sanders and Clinton are neck and neck among Democrats in general, Sanders is miles ahead among Millennial voters. Most recent Millennial polling with Reuters shows a gap that’s swung from a virtual tie at the beginning of 2016 to Sanders dominating Clinton at the end of January.

Millennial lead

Convention electoral wisdom would indicate this doesn’t matter, because younger voters tend not to vote, especially not in primaries and particularly not in a caucus setting. This assumption would appear to be validated by polls conducted in the past couple of years showing how “apathetic” Millennials are.

The Sanders campaign is premised on the the idea that it’s more complicated than all that. It’s not that Millennials don’t care about the issues; indeed, their social behavior demonstrates intense concern about issues like LGBT rights, abortion, healthcare, and the economy. The problem has been that there hasn’t been a candidate who they felt adequately reflected their values, so they haven’t been very excited about the political process. Sanders, with his intensely progressive campaign, is aiming to change that, and betting that if they can get Millennials to vote, they can help usher in a more progressive Congress to advance his more progressive agenda.

IF Millennials show up tonight in Iowa to give Sanders the win, it says a lot about what’s coming down the pike. It would demonstrate that Millennials are more engaged than conventional political wisdom would suggest, which weighs heavily in Sanders’ favor, not only in terms of primary results, but in terms of drumming up support among more establishment Democrats. It sends them the message that they don’t need to run from progressive ideals to win. Plus, if he can bring out Millennials, he’s not only suddenly electable; he also has the ability to bring some serious heat for down ticket election Democrats. To be fair, if Millennials show up in lower numbers but Sanders still wins, the news is less likely to spark that revolution he’s hoping for, but it will still speak to his competitiveness. Tonight is incredibly important for Sanders.

In either case, Clinton can’t afford to lose. Her trajectory up to now is already mirroring what happened in 2008. For her to be beat by another upstart of sorts right out of the gates despite the massive power of the Clinton machine behind her would be devastating, especially since it appears that New Hampshire is already out of reach for her. If Millennials pour in and show Sanders love, it would echo something made clear in Clinton’s loss to Obama: she’s not great at youth outreach, and never has been. It’s almost worse if Millennials don’t show up and she loses, though, because that shows she doesn’t even have a firm grip on a base that many assumed would be handing her a coronation.

And here’s the other thing: even if Clinton wins, she may still lose. If the margin of victory is as small as it’s likely to be if she wins, it’s still an embarrassment. She’s got better infrastructure and bottomless pockets behind her, and somehow the political equivalent of an old man yelling at people to get off of his financial lawn is within striking distance of her? The optics aren’t great. The best case scenario would be her coming away with a decisive win, but that’s incredibly unlikely, so she’s got to hope she at least eeks it out. If she can do that, slim the gap between her and Sanders in New Hampshire, and capture the minority vote in Nevada and South Carolina, she may just come out on top.

But taking a step back here, let’s be fair. While momentum out of Iowa could certainly change things, Sanders still faces an uphill battle. A victory would counter the narrative that he’s unelectable or would cost the Democrats if nominated, but Clinton still has a lot of support and is widely seen as the most likely nominee. For him to get the nomination, the reaction to Iowa has to be substantial.

The Third Party Voter: Weather

To caucus in Iowa, you have to declare a party, but Mother Nature doesn’t play by the rules. Snow is in the forecast for this evening, and though most think it shouldn’t hit until after the caucuses have wrapped up, fear of a storm may keep some voters away. It’s anyone’s guess who that impacts most. On one hand, you could say that inclement weather would keep people who are not dedicated participants in the system at home. On the other hand, you could say that first time participants are so fired up that they’ll show up come hell or high water.

So there’s that.

Personally, I’m not willing to make any calls about what’s going to happen tonight except to say it’s going to be interesting, which, for someone like me, is as good as it gets.

Donald-Trump-Hillary-Clinton-Bill-Clinton

Hillary, Rape Culture, and an Uneasy Agreement with Trump

The Trump campaign has, since the beginning, seemed a caricature of what conservative politics has turned into over the past two decades. Instead of hiding behind dog whistles, he’s blatantly, proudly blasted out sexist, racist, classist and xenophobic rhetoric like it’s going out of style. It’s working for him, which is more than a little unnerving.

His sexism, in particular, is beyond question. This is a man who told an employee she’d look pretty on her knees, who disparages women’s appearances instead of engaging with critique, who accuses media members of being on their period when they dare question him, who dismisses fellow conservative competitors for not being pretty enough to win, who — when running out of options — chooses to leap on his female opponent’s use of a bathroom.

He’s a misogynist asshole. Point blank.

Last week, in yet another chapter of absurdity, he claimed that women were yuge fans of his, and that stalwart feminist icon Hillary Clinton was anti-woman. Derision, side eye, and shade came down in an avalanche, and rightfully so. There is no world in which Trump could be considered a greater ally for women.

And yet…

Alright, stay with me for a minute. Set aside your fervent love of Clinton. Simmer your Sanders adoration. Acknowledge your intense fear and loathing of the GOP field, but don’t let it cloud your vision. Put down the pitchforks for a second, and please just listen.

Because I’m about to agree — in part — with Trump. And I might hate myself more for it than you do.

See, Trump’s criticism of Hillary’s record on women wasn’t just a random jab; it was connected to the philandering ways of Bill Clinton.

At first I snorted at the support he provided for the conjecture. Frankly, I don’t care who sleeps with who and who accepts it or doesn’t. The Clintons are ostensibly good with each other despite past dalliances, and since it’s really none of my business, it’s a non issue in my mind.

If that had been the extent of his attack, I’d have gone back to a Netflix binge and chalk it up to another transparent GOP smear attempt. But Trump wasn’t just talking about the consensual extramarital affairs. He was also making reference to the accusations of sexual harassment against Bill that have come to the forefront over the years, and Hillary’s role in those sagas.

Bill has been accused by multiple women of sexual harassment or assault since his career began. Some of those accusations wound up in court. Some of them were settled outside of court. Some of them were shouted into obscurity. But they’re there, as are accounts of Hillary’s attempts to bury them with private investigators and bullying.

And this is where I get stuck as someone who tries very hard to be a good ally for survivors of sexual assault and an advocate against rape culture.

On face, I want to holler with the rest of my progressive friends about all the good Hillary’s done in her life for women, about what a positive role model she’s been. I want to say that those allegations were never proven and this is just another desperate Republican attempt to quash Hillary before she gets the nomination.

But I can’t. Because I get angry when people say that Cosby, despite numerous accusers and a record of out of court settlements, doesn’t deserve our disdain. I get frustrated when people say that Woody Allen marrying someone he’s accused of molesting excuses his gross abuse of power. I get sick when people shrug off player after player in the NFL for their assaults because the women accusing them are obviously just seeking attention. I get exasperated when people tell me to stave off judgment until a legal system (that has proven itself woefully inadequate) adjudicates another woman’s trauma, like their decision is the ultimate arbiter of reality.

And to look at Bill Clinton’s tattered history without the same critical lens because I think his wife is better than the horror show in the GOP presidential field would make me a massive hypocrite.

We can say that none of these cases were ever proven in court, but that’s a bullshit dodge. The legal system fails survivors of sexual assault early and often, starting with authorities questioning attire and prior relationships and ending with a he-said-she-said deflection.

We can choose to say fall back on the he-said-she-said excuse in general discussion of the topic, too, but that’s crap, as well. How many allies posted about how absurd it is that we discount the trauma of multiple women in order to defend the acceptance of one man’s denial when the Cosby travesty gained public notoriety once more last year? Bill has had multiple accusers, as well. He also had out of court settlements. Why does he get a pass?

We can roll our eyes and say he’s being targeted because he’s a prominent public figure. He certainly is, but that’s the exact reason why we should be willing to look at the situation critically. It is not easy for survivors to come forward under far less visible circumstances; it is infinitely harder to do so when being put under a public microscope and having your story and person torn to shreds is a certainty. Multiple women have been willing to face that level of scrutiny. That’s not something someone does for fun. And as the data shows, false accusations are exceedingly rare.

We can look the other way when considering Hillary’s behavior involving the accusations. And maybe, to some extent, that’s fair. Yes, there have been reports that she hired private investigators in order to bully accusers into silence, but a lot of those reports have also been circulated by notoriously unreliable conservative pundits and politicos. I’m willing to concede that those reports might not be true.

But those aren’t the only criticisms that can be made of Hillary on this note. Indeed, her response to Trump’s comments was problematic in and of itself. After being pressed on the subject at a New Hampshire event, Hillary replied:

I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.

It was a safe response, of course. Nothing wrong on the surface. But when you look at the history of the allegations against Bill and the way those cases were handled, the dismissal of the accusers was not a function of evidence; it was a function of politics. Hillary knows (or should know) about the infrequency of false allegations and how that information interacts with Bill’s track record, but instead of grappling with that, she’s buying whole hog into the fallacy with this comment.

And yes, we can talk about how she really doesn’t have any other pragmatic response. Evidence shows that her numbers surge during attacks like these; buying into them would be like refusing a gift horse. And the idea of having to grapple with such a disturbing reality in such a personal relationship is overwhelming, to say the least. I absolutely get that. 

But you know what’s even harder to deal with? The trauma of sexual assault. Political convenience is a crass and callous excuse here.

And while Hillary’s record is largely a positive one for women, she’s never been a particularly vocal advocate for sexual assault survivors. She’s apologized to other nations for rapes committed by American troops, but unlike her fellow female Democrats, she’s yet to call for reform in how the military handles rape cases internally. In fact, outside of rather soft rhetoric (as seen above), she’s stayed away from any substantive engagement of sexual violence issues.

Again, probably because it’s not real convenient.

And before it’s said that I’m targeting Hillary, let me make it clear that the Sanders response wasn’t a good one either. When asked about the ongoing feud between Hillary and Trump, Sanders said:

I think, you know, we have enormous problems facing this country and I think we got more things to worry about than Bill Clinton’s sexual life. I think — interestingly enough, maybe Donald Trump might want to focus attention on climate change, understand that climate change is not a hoax, as he believes that it is, that maybe Donald Trump should understand that we should raise the minimum wage in this country, which he opposes, and maybe we should not be giving huge tax breaks to fellow billionaires like Donald Trump.

So I think maybe he should focus on those things.

This is just as bad as Hillary’s deflection, if not worse. We’re not talking about “sex”; we’re talking about assault. And while I’m not going to deny that the other issues he references deserve attention, to argue that sexual assault is somehow unworthy of attention as well is an asshole move. It’s also a common move in positions of privilege to deflect conversations that are uncomfortable or politically perilous.

To be fair, I can’t let this critique discount Hillary or Sanders as candidates. Both have a lot of good to offer, and both are infinitely better candidates for president than anyone the GOP is offering. The stakes are too high to dismiss them out of hand. But being willing to accept the lesser of evils during such a time doesn’t mean we stay quiet about imperfections in the candidates we’re willing to consider. When we prioritize painting candidates as perfect over demanding they do better and be better, nothing changes, and we’re no better than the rabid GOP supporters who refuse to criticize their own party.

Listen, I hate having to give anything Trump says the time of day, but I cannot, in good conscience, just ignore this issue. And if you’re calling yourself an ally of sexual assault survivors, neither should you.

(Waits patiently for the tomatoes to start flying.)