Americans can look past sexual assault. Just don't hurt dogs

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a conspiracy-spouting, fact-hating jackass whose work spreading lies about vaccines directly led to the death of children. However, he’s still politically astute enough that when Vanity Fair ran a story on July 2 claiming that he had eaten a dog, Kennedy rushed to deny it.  Kennedy may have denied chowing down on a canine, but he did not deny the other part of the Vanity Fair story—the part alleging that he sexually assaulted a former nanny. In fact, Kennedy seemed both to confirm the story and find it all amusing.  “I’m not a church boy,” Kennedy told the host of the “Breaking Points” podcast, adding that he had “many skeletons in my closet.” News stories about Kennedy over the past few days have focused on his standing in the polls and his engagement with 9/11 conspiracies. And, of course, there were several more stories about Kennedy denying that he ate that dog. What seems to be avoiding any scrutiny is that other sordid allegation revealed by Vanity Fair. Because America, or at least the American media, seems to care more about dead dogs than it does the live women who are victims of sexual assault. As South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem demonstrated vividly, you can be a terrible person who is terrible to people and get away with it—but if you kill a dog, the nation will notice. Noem’s political prospects were just fine after hiring Hells Angels to intimidate protesters and being so disrespectful to Native Americans that she was banned from setting foot in one-fifth of the state she is supposed to govern. But one little story about the pleasure she derived from gunning down a misbehaving puppy, and suddenly the woman once hailed as a top pick for vice president became a political pariah. Dogs get immediate empathy.  But when it comes to the other half of that RFK Jr. story, here’s the entire exchange from that “Breaking Points” interview: Host: Vanity Fair came out with a major profile today. I want to give you a chance to respond to this. There’s a photo circulating, I believe with you posing with what looks like a dog and also—a barbecued dog. I’m not going to show the picture. I’m a dog lover and I know you have pets yourself. And also a sexual assault allegation from one of your former nannies. So I want to give you a chance to respond to that. Kennedy: The article is a lot of garbage. The picture of me they said is of me eating a dog is actually me eating a goat in Patagonia on a white water trip many years ago on the Futaleufú River. They have an expert that has identified that as a dog carcass. It’s just not true. You know, in terms of the other allegations, listen, I said this from the beginning. I am not a church boy. I am not running like that. I said it in my— I had a very, very rambunctious youth. I said in my announcement speech that I have so many skeletons in my closet, that if they could all vote I could run for king of the world. So, Vanity Fair is recycling 30-year-old stories and I’m not going to comment on the details of any of them, but, you know, I am who I am. This isn’t a denial. This is the opposite of a denial. This is a dismissal of sexual assault as just something very rambunctious. As a byproduct of youth. As “boys will be boys.” The story about the nanny is in fact from 1998, so Kennedy’s claim about the story’s age is only off by about four years. But when it comes to his age, Kennedy was 44 years old at the time. Is there anyone who genuinely believes that a 44-year-old married man represents “rambunctious youth”? If Kennedy’s very troubling actions are getting little attention, he’s far from alone. Donald Trump is a convicted felon who was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records to protect his 2016 campaign. That’s an actual crime. It’s genuinely shocking that any former occupant of the White House would be found guilty of a felony, and it’s not surprising that “convicted felon” is a label that both Democratic campaign staff and pundits are eager to use when discussing Trump. But he is also an adjudicated sexual abuser.  As The Washington Post reported a year ago, the judge in that case, Lewis Kaplan, responded sharply to suggestions that a jury found only that Trump “groped” writer E. Jean Carroll. “The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law, does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’” Kaplan wrote. “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.” Why is the simple fact that Trump is an adjudicated sexual abuser so rarely mentioned when talking about reasons he shouldn't run? His criminal conviction is bad, and surely should be disqualifying. But so should this. One dead dog may keep anyone from running for high office. But it seems that any number of live women who are victims of sexual assault can