What Do We Do With This?

Joe Biden was asked, point blank, by Mika Breszinski, who has street cred, whether he had sexually assaulted Tara Reade in 1993. His answer: Absolutely not. It never happened.

Tara Reade says yes. So what do you do with this? Look into the motives of the accuser? She says she'll vote for Biden for president nonetheless. At least she's not crazy.

Then why did she wait until now to come forward? We return to Kavanaugh, and before him, Clarence Thomas and their crocodile tears. And let's not forget the primary beast, 45, and his multiple, blatant, assaults, the revelation behind some he has paid off (and who is doing his best to pivot on the Biden business and lump himself in with the rest of the poor male victims).

Is it that Reade, who must understand something about Washington politics since she worked as a staffer on the Hill, needed to clear her own conscience, having absorbed an attack without going public about it all this time? Did she think that the establishment was going to give her a pass and go without investigation or scrutiny?

She had plenty of opportunity to upset Biden's applecart. Biden did run for President and Vice-President twice in-between. If she would have come forward back then, the accusation probably would have had better attention. That's why it's such a head-scratcher. What's the point now?

If she's right, it's still he-said, she-said, 27 years ago. A neighbor corroborated, but didn't come forward, either. Protecting her privacy? Well, no. Not now. And, now that Reade has come forward, the matter is moot. If privacy was the point, nobody would have said a thing, ever.

Is it that now it's more fashionable, more socially acceptable, for women to come forward? Is this, at last, the legacy of Harvey Weinstein?

If so, fine. No sexual assault or harassment should ever go unanswered or unclarified. It's too serious a matter. Relationships between the genders are improving, in a way; things are 'out there' more often. But it's glacial.

Me-Too has its point. But after that point, it adopts a vindictive feel. If you don't step forward for many years, I'm sorry, but your street cred has taken a dive. Or is it that like the above Supreme Court nominations, there are now things at stake, things that look now a bit clearer? But what can be more at stake than a woman's dignity?

Or am I underestimating the onus that women feel about stepping forward? It's still up to the individual. She can get a good attorney, then go forward. She can do that any time she wants. Where else are we going to leave this?

Look, I'm a guy, and within that comes some bias. But Christine Blasey Ford and Tara Reade have, and had, the same problem: No corroboration; someone to listen to them, but too far back (like E. Jean Carroll, who said 45 raped her; suspicion is enormous, but she waited so long). They may very well have been abused, but they detached.

When you come back around, you must use the facts that are still out there and that are agreed to. The other side has its day coming to it, and the emotionality that accompanies these messes must subside. We want to be fair about the facts. We still like the two-source rule: If two sources can verify, we're good with it. Ford and Reade, and for that matter, Anita Hill, haven't done that and never did, despite media coverage.

At least Biden didn't display utter immaturity, like Kavanaugh, the victim's victim, who hid behind a very abbreviated investigation. Biden came forward willingly, too and no weasel words. He didn't insult his questioner, or his accuser. He didn't call it 'fake news.' He said women have the perfect right to say such things. He isn't hypocritical about that. But it feels a bit hollow.

And old. 45 has set the non-standard for dealing with this: grab her for fun, pay her off, keep lying until it goes away. And he got forgiven by enough people to back into the presidency by the back door. A big deal has been made of it, but to what end if someone else has already gotten away with so much? Biden hasn't paid anybody off. And, he says, he isn't lying.

Tell you what, though: Whatever woman Biden reaches out to choose for his running mate should vet this thoroughly. The decision should be based on her qualifications, but the onus of running with a potential molester still smacks of ultimate hypocrisy and piggy-backing for prestige. Here's an interesting question: Has the available supply of female candidates just been reduced? What if he can't find one now?

We haven't emerged from this yet, but the obvious conclusion is what the cynics have been saying all along: This has nothing to do with the position. It's personal, not policy. The Puritan Ethic has lost this battle. Can we get beyond this tawdriness now? Can we focus on the real debate, the future of our flagging country? Now that both sides have appeared dirty for some time now, can we have done with someone's definition of morality and just argue where in the hell we seem to be going?

We seem to be stuck. More journalism might be what's needed to establish a potential motive behind either person's actions, or both. Democrats, who now were coalescing behind a ho-hum candidate in order to get their ducks in a row and rally to get His Awfulness out of there, must now wonder: What did we just do? Maybe all we have to do is wait: Either something else comes out here, or it doesn't.

Republicans will, I predict, now bring something else out. Perhaps Hunter Biden again? We haven't heard from Sen. Ron Johnson in a while, and he was at the forefront of that wild goose chase. They aren't exactly beating a dead horse. They'll do what they can to give dispersions life. Such are the hazards of running for president.

Short of new revelations, maybe we just need to get on with things. The future of the country is clearly at stake here. What a shame if this got in the way of it.

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.


Mister Mark