I was wondering when you were going to make this point.

That he harassed his women underlings was always going to make him more popular among the right-wing douchebags, not less.

I bet they also find it hilarious that he can go out and bad-mouth the accusers all he wants but they’re legally obligated to sit down and shut up (like good little wimmenz).

The GOP is, was, and always will be the party of Cheap Labor.

I think what’s even better about this from the reactionary jerkwad point of view is that Cain’s reported behavior also plays into the racist tropes about black men as mas macho.

The Cain phenomena may also be due to the fact the base really doesn’t like Romney, I guess in a way it’s good, conservatives seem less bigoted towards blacks than Mormons.

Also, great point about labor and women rights, it’s too bad more oppressed groups don’t work together, it would make them all stronger.

  Well at least conservatives are being honest. Its a type of progress.

  3letterjon: Yes, this is true. The GOP’s immigration policies make a lot of sense when you realize that they want Cheap Labor. Conservative immgiration policy is designed to lead to there being millions of undocumented immigrants in the United States. Undocumented immigrants are the ultimate source of cheap labor since they are unlikely to turn to government or non-government forces for help when exploited, mistreated, or victimized because they fear removal.

The reason conservatives are acting that way is the same reasson that liberals defended sexual predators like Edward Kennedy and Bill Clinton.  You rally around your side and come up with post hoc rationalizations.  If these events happened to a democrat they would all over it like white on rice. 

liberals who distinguish between women’s issues and labor issues are missing the point—-for conservatives, it’s all one and the same, because bosses and men both are seeing their supposed right to exert control over labor and and women threatened.

Having spent nearly a decade working in restaurants, I’ve had assorted half-baked thoughts floating around this issue since the story was first reported. It’s sort of perfect that this happened at the NRA because, in my experience, sexual harassment was not a recognized concept in the restaurant business. Sexually inappropriate commentary and gendered abusive language was constant. I had a bartender smack me on the ass once (unprompted), just to see if I would like it. It never would have occurred to me to complain to management because that’s not how power was negotiated in that situation. And I do think lax labor standards at restaurants had something to do with that.

Servers were paid 2.13 an hour so management had zero incentive to value our time. They’d regularly schedule more servers than they needed, just in case it got busier than expected, meaning the servers were left to fend for themselves and stress about sitting around doing nothing. The alternative to doing nothing was doing side work, assorted cleaning projects, the dreaded polishing of silverware, etc. Side work was a delicate thing. You had to do some of it, so as not appear to management as a total slacker. But if you did too much of it then management had no incentive to send you home when things were dead, or give you tables if it was merely a trickle.

One’s ability to make money depended on what shifts you were scheduled for and what sections you were assigned. Complaining to management about anything was a good way to not make money. The hostile environment of the kitchen (Gordon Ramsay is a softy, in my experience) was just something you were expected to negotiate, it was a job skill as much as “serve from the left, clear from the right.” All of this was treated as inevitable.

Add to all that the fact that basically the number one selling point of waiting tables is the opportunity for tax evasion on cash income, and you have a work culture that operates under laws of nature, not labor laws. Customers who are savvy to the business know that servers prefer to be tipped in cash because it makes it easy to avoid reporting that income. I know a ton of progressive sorts who proudly take part in this activity. Hell, I do it myself because that’s the way the system currently works. But I suspect that the common acceptance of “it’s ok for servers to cheat on taxes” is part and parcel with “it’s ok for management to cheat on labor laws.”

Ok, I admitted at the outset that these are half-baked responses. tl:dr restaurants are sort of a reactionary’s wet dream because of the prevailing disregard for assorted laws meant to assure a more dignified work environment.

The reason conservatives are acting that way is the same reasson that liberals defended sexual predators like Edward Kennedy and Bill Clinton.  You rally around your side and come up with post hoc rationalizations.  If these events happened to a democrat they would all over it like white on rice.

But the interesting thing is that liberals didn’t largely respond to either of those situations by saying “Driving off a bridge while drunk, killing a woman, and then not reporting it shouldn’t be a crime, anyway!” or “having sex with your interns is to be encouraged!”

Tribalism is tribalism, but the form this particular tribalism is taking is interesting.

And Teddy was in what sense a sexual predator?

It was not ‘till I was standing in a lake effect snow storm last February during the Scott Walker/Wisconsin mess that I kind of ‘flashed on it.’ Here was a protest against union busting and then a march for choice with a pioius ‘counter demonstration’ of pro life people - looking a lot like a catholic school where girl students were corralled into action.

It’s a fact labor activism and feminism are - lets say the ‘least strange bedfellows.’

There is a natural affinity here because the same egalitarian principles that say you can’t get your kicks jerking the chains of male underlings is the same principle that protects women from harassment.

This is not new. Thorstein Veblen of “conspicuous consumption” fame made the point that ‘women’s work’ was pretty much - well, just work. He pointed to primitive tribes where men were often not even supposed to carry their game animal back to the camp because killing it was honorable, but dragging it home was dishonorable.

#6 Brian:

You seem to have forgotten someone - Anthony Wiener was forced out of his seat not by any Repub - it was Nancy Pelosi. So, no, liberals would not do what you are saying. This happened really recently so I’m surprised you would not have remembered that.

Kennedy grabbing a waitress, pushing her against Senator Dodd and proceeding to dry hump her while their dates were in the ladies room qualafies him as a sexual predator. 
James Carville famously said if you flash money around a trailer park you can hear whatever you want. 

Bottomline the primary motivation is partaisanship and whose ox is being gored.

OTOH, Sen Vitter can break the law by using prostitutes, and he is still in the Senate, Brian7.

Thanks for playing.

#10:

You seem to have forgotten someone - Anthony Wiener was forced out of his seat not by any Repub - it was Nancy Pelosi.

And the joke there was that Wiener wasn’t really even guilty of doing anything except being a creep on the internet.  The Democrats went in with a hatchet on that one and cost themselves the House seat for their troubles, all to spare themselves the dishonor of too many televised dick-pics.

I think this really goes toward a difference in methodologies.  Democrat party guys are more than ready to cut anyone even slightly controversial loose.  Republican party guys fight like hell to keep these people guarded in their ranks.  So Democrats lose a lot of their ethically challenged firebrands.  Meanwhile, Republicans take another ding to their branding.  But so long as Republicans keep winning elections (Vitter, Craig, Rand “Aqua Budda” Paul) in the face of these abuses, they’re going to continue not to give a shit when they are leveled.

If you want Republican party faithful to back away from candidates that do this kind of shit, you have to make the scandals truly toxic.  Republican voters will never punish their candidates if they believe the candidates can win in the general regardless of their personal histories.  I think Cain’s voters see him ahead in the polls and don’t want to watch another champion fall from grace.  They’re backing him because they still think he can win, not because they care one way or the other whether he’s a harasser.

Okay, Brian, say that happened. I never heard it, but I’m by no means a Teddy scholar. Same with the Carville quote, say it’s true. (It sure sounds like something he’d say.) Neither are examples of liberals defending that behavior in the manner conservatives are defending Cain.

Since denying that it happened is basically off the table for conservatives, denying that it matters is their only real gambit. They’re far more comfortable scolding women to endure sexual harassment and abuse with a smile than quibbling over the facts, since doing the latter requires reluctantly conceding that men shouldn’t grope and leer at their colleagues. Calling women who complain about sexual harassment hysterical bitches is emotionally easier for them, since that’s what they meant to say all along.

The difference is between saying “It didn’t happen!” like your Carville quote and “It happened, but it’s not really a bad thing anyway!” as Amanda is talking about. This’ll be the last time I explain things to you like you’re a real person, unless you demonstrate in some way that you aren’t a silly troll.

I totally agree with the performance art interpretation of the Cain campaign. In fact, when I first heard of the sexual harassment allegations, I thought they were fake. But not because I think that there’s no such thing as sexual harassment or that women frequently lie about it; No I doubted the allegations because the timing was just too perfect and fit in so well with the Cain as performance artist interpretation. Turns out I was wrong. The settlements make that clear.

Ahahahaha.

I’m pretty sure Herman Cain’s speechwriter was trolling him with the Pokemon line. If they’d managed to get him to say “I wanna be the very best, like no one ever was…” it would have been a lot more memetic though.

“This happened really recently so I’m surprised you would not have remembered that.”

The past is only of value when it supports your preconceived ideas.

Wiener was gone too quickly to be of much value in an argument against the hated Democrats.  Wiener was dropped like a hot potato, which is how the much-worse Republican scandals should have been handled.  If it had dragged out for a few months, it would have been different.

So for wingnuts it’s best to skip over Wiener and head right back to the old “Democrats are worse, but the librul media covers for them!” narrative that has served the Reichwing so well in the past…

Also, listen to Rachel Maddow talk about “the Pokemon movie” as if there’s only one of the damn things. If only…

The same day that I wrote that blog post, Media Matters put out a long list of conservatives dismissing the idea that there’s any such thing as sexual harassment.

These are, I assume, the same conservatives who would hold that it would be appropriate to respond with violence if a gay comes on to you?

@vladimir, not for nothing, but I tip in cash not to encourage tax cheating, but to make it more difficult for management to abscond with the tip.

This piece reminds me of the ‘how come stewardesses aren’t hot anymore’ whining from a few weeks back. Because to the conservative mind, service workers must be pretty to look at, regardless of what they are tasked to do.

Ah, yes, the old conservative canard of “Both sides do it!”  How many Democrats did Jack Abramoff give money to?

Zero.  Because he knew better.

Anyways, yes, of course this is going to help Cain with Republicans, because they hate America and Americans.  They hate the idea of America, a place where people are free to live their own lives.

reactionaries, who we call “conservatives”, are people who angrily reject any attempt to make society more fair and equal. They cherish strict hierarchies.

That, I think, is the main reason conservatives (rather, reactionaries) aren’t afraid of the h-word the way liberals are. If a core piece of your ideology is that some people are deserving of more privilege than others, assertions that your behavior seems to reflect that belief hold no sting. It’s not hypocrisy then, you’re just one of the deserving.

I tip in cash, when it’s my own money, so that management can neither justify their piss poor pay scales nor skim the tips.  Unfortunately, my co wont reimburse any cash items and I puposefully chose my travel meals to allow them to be within per diem with the tip.  Since the tip is in lieu of proper pay for servers, I figure it is a legit cost to add to the meal.

I tip in cash, too. I figure people who are allowed to get less than minimum wage by law know best as to how much of their tips they want to tell their employers and/or the IRS about.

They just don’t think that the stuff Cain was accused of was all that bad.

Indeed. What do you think conservatives are trying to conserve?

Brian @6 demonstrates another aspect of right wing thinking: they don’t really don’t give a shit about consent. Sexuality’s morality is strictly defined by a set of often-arbitrary rules. There’s no distinction being made between consensual adultery and non-consensual sexual harassment in an attempt to commit adultery. What Clinton did was certain icky and disgusting, but unlike with the Cain situation, Lewinsky was not being harassed.

What does the clip show?  Those of us with Ipads can’t see flash videos.

One fun thing to do with conservatives who like what Cain did is to ask them what they’d do if it was their wife or their daughter being given a quid pro quo.

Or their son, for that matter.

Amanda,

By sexual predator I wasnt referring to Clinton’s actions with Lewinski but rather the alleged actions with Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, et al. 

However, I would wager if a Fortune 500 CEO was to engage in sex acts in his work office with an intern and it became publicized I doubt that he would receive the benefit of the doubt from feminist groups. If there are examples of feminists excusing such things as ‘consensual’ I have missed it.

Partisans will excuse what is done on their side with rare exceptions.

Are they even “alleged”, though? After an extremely thorough investigation, all that was proven was a consensual encounter.

What next, Brian? Vince Foster? Hillary is a lesbian? C’mon…. You can’t compare apples of reality with oranges of right wing nuttery.

#29:

Partisans will excuse what is done on their side with rare exceptions.

They’ll also swallow whatever red meat you’re willing to throw in the water.

Btw, the woman that just went public on Cain?  Old, white, blonde, Republican - that should be a TKO for Mr. Godfather.  The KKK wing of the GOP won’t stand for this.  Not that Cain ever really had a chance, but latent racism should kill any enthusiasm his campaign had.

Well, based on the first accuser to hold a press conference, teh conservatives are right - this probably isn’t sexual harassment:

The accuser, Sharon Bialek, said that when she was alone in a car with Herman Cain, he suddenly shoved his hand under her skirt, reaching for her “genitals,” then grabbed her head and pulled it down to his crotch.

Ms. Bialek is actually describing a sexual assault, not just harassment. And she has sworn statements from two people she talked to about the incident, shortly after it happened.

(From LGF)

I’m not sure what State it occurred in, but that would have Cain up on “indecent assault” charges under the Crimes Act here, a charge carrying up to 7 years.

PiatoR - My thinking exactly. That’s assault, not harassment.

Newer reports are starting to say Cain is being harmed by the Harrassment charges… My theory is that the lack of concern that conservatives feel for women being harrassed is being outweighed by the discomfort of supportng a black man for hitting on pretty blonde white women…

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/sharon-bialek-ex-nra-employee-accuses-herman-cain-of-sexual-harassment.php?ref=fpa_beta

Racism FTW!

The horse race questions were asked of 1,054 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents Wednesday through Sunday. The questions about the sexual harassment charges were asked of 850 Thursday through Sunday. The margin of error for each sample is +/-4 percentage points….

47% say the accusations are probably false, 33% say they are probably true. Just a handful are convinced one way or another.

Still, the survey makes it clear that most view sexual harassment as a serious matter that would disqualify a presidential contender from consideration. If accusations were proved, 53% say they definitely would not vote for that candidate; 42% say they would still consider supporting him or her.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-11-07/poll-romney-cain-harassment/51109760/1

42 percent?  I wouldn’t be so blase, I’d say this is a bare majority. 

I suspected most GOP and GOP-leaners would be much less accepting of someone who’s not Christian, or someone who’s gay or lesbian and it turns out this is true.  Among the conservative population:

71 percent would refuse to vote for an atheist.
64 percent would refuse to vote for someone gay or lesbian.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/some-americans-reluctant-vote-mormon-72yearold-presidential-candidates.aspx
(scroll down for comparison of liberal, moderate, conservative)

I don’t see why quoting pokemon is significantly more ridiculous than quoting the bible.

Because Pokemon is a children’s story designed to sell toys, and the bible is a foundational document for our cultural tradition?

Is this a “they’re both made up” thing?  Because, sure, they are.  But Pokemon is still unusually barren of insight or utility for anyone who doesn’t want information on how to waste a few leisure hours.

But Pokemon is still unusually barren of insight or utility for anyone who doesn’t want information on how to waste a few leisure hours.

Really?

However, I would wager if a Fortune 500 CEO was to engage in sex acts in his work office with an intern and it became publicized I doubt that he would receive the benefit of the doubt from feminist groups. If there are examples of feminists excusing such things as ‘consensual’ I have missed it.

Besides the fact that the intern and the CEO are a totally different relationship than the intern and the president of the US in terms of power structure and ability to affect their lives post-action the situation you described is still woefully inaccurate.  I know you’re just trolling but what does “both sides do it” have to do with any real argument?  It doesn’t make the argument less effective, if anything it makes it for effective for admitting it’s wrong and thus holding both sides to a higher standard.  It’s rather funny these sorts of arguments only come out when the people arguing them don’t really care if they happen or accept it with a dose of cynicism.  There is no reason to support these activities.

#40:  Damn those liberals!  Is there anything they aren’t to blame for?

Radical communitarians? Come on, you can do better.

However, I would wager if a Fortune 500 CEO was to engage in sex acts in his work office with an intern and it became publicized I doubt that he would receive the benefit of the doubt from feminist groups. If there are examples of feminists excusing such things as ‘consensual’ I have missed it.

Another thing missed by our troll is that when the Clinton scandal occurred, it actually did get some strong blowback from feminist groups primarily surrounding exactly that, that the differential of power between president and intern might have affected the consent. So as much as he’s trying to argue hypocrisy here, the response to consensual sex between a CEO and an intern and a president and an intern gets about the same response.

Hell, the President and intern one actually got a bit more backlash, because that was strong in the media and demanded a response and most feminists with regards to CEOs and other business leaders tend to be dealing with so much sexual harassment and full on “have sex with me or your fired” type situations to deal with that consensual cheating just doesn’t really make the rounds. Hell, the former doesn’t even get talked about as much as it should because of the unique powers many businesses have versus political powers (getting fired from a business means a lot more and is far more damaging then getting fired from the White House, because there are plenty of people aching to hire on anyone with any connection to powerful political leaders).

Not that it matters, because “both sides do it” is simply the right-wing attack for right-wing crimes. By arguing it is a “both sides problem” they encourage people to associate their misdeeds with their opponents, minimize the problem itself and allow the other side to appear like the sleazy one because Democrat crimes become moments for Democrats to feel shame and Republican crimes become moments for Democrats to feel shame.

It’s a handy scam, really.

@#40; C’mon, there, Dawg, Bialek’s lawyer is Gloria Allred.  Surely you could make up a clever Communist pun there if you tried. 

Oh, wait, Allred was also Paula Jones’ lawyer, so you probably can’t.

BTW, I see Limbaugh has already turned Bialek’s name into “Buy A Lick”.  Stay classy there, Rush.

What are the odds 40 is a joke comment? Radical communitarians sounds like something from the Onion and the we would care about it if you didn’t care about it is just off. Usually its you care about it so it obviously doesn’t matter, isn’t real or quick look at the sparkly distraction. All so there was no racial slur and those usually get worked in somwhere.

I would further point out that sexual harassment is inherently political, and that the commenter @ #40 is unfairly maligning canines by associating them with his tripe-spewing.

I would further point out that sexual harassment is inherently political, and that the commenter @ #40 is unfairly maligning canines by associating them with his tripe-spewing.

It’s assault AND harassment. “You want a job, right?” combined with a grope is pretty damning stuff for a franchise night manager, but it’s even worse for a head of a restaurant association. That this guy has seen his support maintained in the GOP and he’s actually getting more money says a lot about the Republicans.

This party’s Rep. Joe Walsh, the deadbeat dad, gets honored for his family values. They think “You want a job, right?” is a Job Creator’s Noblesse Oblige. What’s next for the GOP? Will they be buying up the entire stock of officially-licensed Penn State sweatshirts to show their devotion to children?

felagund, 42:

Radical communitarians? Come on, you can do better.

Yeah, I think of myself as a moderate communitarian.

It’s assault AND harassment.

I dunno how it is there, but harassment here is a matter of employment law - it triggers a specific set of remedies and a justified grievence when presented in an employment court.  AFAIK it isn’t a crime, per se, but a corporate no-no.

Indecent assault is a crime punishable by up to seven years.

Is there a statute of limitations on sexual assault in the State which applies?

Are they even “alleged”, though? After an extremely thorough investigation, all that was proven was a consensual encounter.

I would say beyond alleged.  I was understating it.

An $850K settlement is highly unusual for a ‘consensual encounter’.  Cain would need about 20 more women to come forward to have that much change.  Maybe by next week he’ll be there.  Current over /under is 10 more days.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/jones111498.htm

It is amazing though that people so prone to believe Anita Hill refuse to believe Paula Jones even though she ended with a nearly 7 figure settlement.  Its a combination of partisanship (The right wing wants to get Clinton so we close ranks)  and classism.  Its more pleasant to identify with a Yale educated attorney than uneducated “trailer trash”.

PiatoR, in the unlikely event that what Mr. Cain did to Ms. Bialik would have reached a criminal court, it would have likely been a misdemeanor offense unless the other factors (the job “offer” and what her current status was within the organization) made it a felony. The prosecutor would have been overjoyed at the idea of going for a felony, loved to get a misdemeanor conviction via a plea bargain, and likely have had a lot of trepidation about what a jury would want to do about the evidence. From what I’ve been told about sex abuse trials (from someone who has studied them quite a bit and works with rape survivors in the emergency rooms they first go to,) juries want to see physical injuries and have irrefutable evidence that the attack wasn’t consensual in any way. They want the stranger in the bushes before they can accept the idea of “rape” and not accept the idea that she must have been asking for it in some way or he just accidentally misread her signals. “I’ve got a boyfriend” is just a way of saying “This will be extra naughty and exciting!” to those who choose to read it that way, after all. And juries can be like that.

As for statute of limitations issues, there are some states in the US that have removed them for crimes where evidence is found and they’re felonies and a few other factors are involved (such as underage victims, like the Penn State stuff going on right now,) but for an assault of this type I’d seriously doubt a fifteen-year-old minor (in the scope of sex crimes) event would be of a high priority for a prosecutor.

In the US we have civil courts that handle almost all the employment issues that aren’t under some sorts of union protection or civil service (for government) agencies. Human resources departments in large corporations handle some of these issues, but getting things to courts requires a lot of time, money, and in many cases it can send a career backward. It can as often be employees against employees, sometimes it’s against supervisors, sometimes it involves employees and customers or other outsiders, and it can often lead to drawn-out issues as various versions of due process reach slow conclusions after multiple appeals. I like the idea of an “employment court”, but then again I live in a conservative crazyland and am leery of who would be the judge. I’ve seen a lot of things, heard a lot of things, and spoken up in many unpopular ways. What I said about the GOP being about cheap labor and a desire to keep people in fear. I’ve had someone start a lecture by asking “Do you know who I am?” regarding me correcting his use of the term “mute” when he meant “moot”. Seriously. But I move on, realize where I am in the hierarchy, and know that I never want to be like that. Sometimes I would like to believe women have it easier because generalized crap treatment isn’t specifically mentioned in the policy, but I know better.

Re: Comment #51: Brian7 on 11/07 at 11:40 PM

Are you saying there was a six-figure amount available for her to settle for in 19whatever the event happened?

Because I would posit the figure had more to do with shutting up those willing to finance an embarrassment of the President than culpability.

Basically it sounded more like out-bidding the people willing to spend thousands of dollars keeping the President negatively in the news.

This isn’t defending him, this isn’t denying what happened, or even knowing: this is just pointing out that six years into a Presidency is a far different place than a year before a Presidential campaign.

Clinton didn’t even have three quarters of a million dollars to settle with in 1991.

I like the idea of an “employment court”, but then again I live in a conservative crazyland and am leery of who would be the judge.

Well, the procedure here is laid out here.  Note that the legislation clearly lays out what sexual harassment is and also remedies through the courts, including specific remedies designed to stop the harassment happening again in that workplace.

There’s a 5th accuser now, relating a story of how after giving a speech in Egypt, Cain asked a USAID worker to arrange dinner with one of the questioners during his talk. When she refused to play go-between, he asked her to dinner.

This whole think kind of reeks of Cain finding success in business and then deciding, “Wow. I would love to leverage my success into getting laid,” but being way to socially awkward to pull it off and becoming increasingly creepy about it.

Crissa @ 53. 

I agree with you.  Motivations to settle vary and the underlying facts are different.  However it is very rare to have a settlement when there is no underlying basis. 

The point I’ve been making is to point out that the willingness to believe certain accusations against a politician has much more to do with the individual’s ideology than the relevant facts and the idiocy promoted by the right wing is much more driven by a closing ranks than anything else.  If instead of Herman Cain it was <insert prominent democrat> they would have trumped the allegations and presumed the guilt of the party and said the actions were the worst thing imaginable.

It is beyond comprehension that conservative women are okay with being sexually harassed or in Cain’s case actually assaulted.  Nor do I believe that conservative men are okay with their wives, daughters, mothers, or sisters being harassed. 

The Paula Jones / Anita Hill accusations happened about 3 years apart so it was largely the same people involved.  That one or the other was believed or dismissed is quite telling and it has little bearing on the credibility of their stories and much more on the political side of the fence the person was on.

I, personally, have no trouble imagining Bill Clinton exposing his erect penis and saying “kiss it.” I don’t know about all the other details in that story, but I always felt pretty confident that he had behaved inappropriately with Paula Jones.

It is beyond comprehension that conservative women are okay with being sexually harassed or in Cain’s case actually assaulted.  Nor do I believe that conservative men are okay with their wives, daughters, mothers, or sisters being harassed.
Comment #56: Brian7 on 11/08 at 07:49 AM

You may have unintentionally pointed out how it’s still okay for sexual harassment and assault to happen in Conservativeland—women who aren’t owned by the right people don’t have rights.  That’s why it’s important for everyone to know where you rank, and for “nice” girls to dress and act a certain way—so that “protected” women don’t get accidentally raped. 

Chivalry doesn’t work if you apply it to everyone.  You have to be able to decide who gets it and who doesn’t.

Heh.

“I’ve got 999 problems…”

Is the Pokemon thing just a particularly desperate way to appeal to us voters who were young enough to be at the target age when Pokemon first took off?

Because as a lifelong Pokemaniac I have to say I find it as ridiculous as Rachel Maddow does…

Wow, I phrased that wrong. What I meant to say is that if he’s serious, that has to be the most desperate attempt to appeal to young voters that I’ve ever seen.