Arnold's Apology

The would-be Sacramento groper has apologzied, reports the Wash Post. Sez Arnold S.:

"Yes, it is true that I was on rowdy movie sets and I have done things that were not right which I thought then was playful but now I recognize that I offended people."

"Those people that I have offended, I want to say to them I am deeply sorry about that and I apologize because that's not what I'm trying to do," he said.

(A quick editing query: Did Arnold really mean to suggest that he's not trying to apologize? Is the press, which routinely cleans up quotes for grammar and readability, keeping odd sentence constructions in Arnold's quotes so as to subtly embarrass him?)

Regardless of whether it helps him or hurts him come October 7, this latest development creates a golden opportunity for hypocrisy on the part of a) Republicans who attacked Bill Clinton as unfit for office due to such behavior and b) Democrats who supported Bill Clinton but think Arnold is unfit for office due to such behavior.

Comments

[Anonymous]

arnie lied under oath about it?

[Jeff Smith]

Just what we need - more opportunities for
hypocrisy. I hadn't noticed a shortage. 🙂

Jeff

[Anonymous]

That first comment about lying under oath sound like partisan bullshit, but it does make the point: Arnold's already carried himself with more dignity than Clinton (I know, not saying much). Could you ever imagine Clinton admitting anything? His attack dogs would have publicly identifed the women and called them sluts by now. Plus, Clinton was accused of far worse, by women at least as credible as the ones in the LAT story.

[Melinda]

I'm disappointed, but I'm still voting for him.

At least he owned up to it, took responsibility and apologized.

Lord knows I'm not without sin, and can't throw stones at Shwarzenegger or Clinton.

[joe]

That's pretty good, actually. He admits what he did, takes reponsbility, says it was wrong, says why it was wrong, explains why he thought it was ok in the first place, and acknowledges that he was wrong to think that way in the first place.

If he had said, "I'm sorry they were offended" or some such, that would demonstrated an attitude that would make him unfit for office. But this shows that some growing up has occurred.

And the difference between the accusations vs. Arnold and those against Clinton is that there hasn't been a well funded, organized, years-long campaign to destroy Arnold's career by paying people to make up similar charges. Fool me once, shame...

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry. Yeah, yeah, that's it.

Since when did the government ever give someone a pass (free or simply fined) on petty (petting?)offenses for simply saying you're sorry? It ought to, but it doesn't. If Arnie wins, I hope he remembers this.

[Warren]

Ha ha ha, it looks like Arnie the Barbarian has impaled himself again! [whaank whank waaaaaaa]

Now keep your seats folks the big mud-pie fight is coming up and everybody will want to stick around to find out WHOS YOUR FAVORITE CLOWN!!

doot doot doodle de de dut doot doo doot

[Fred App]

Take responsibility and apologize? Did he really? Let's look a little closer here. He implicitly blames his actions on the atmosphere of "rowdy movie sets"; he never specifies what he did ("things that were not right" is a little tamer and less incriminating than "I sexually molested five women") and instead of saying he's sorry for his actions, he says he's sorry he offended people, which really isn't the same thing at all.

If this is what passes for responsibility and honesty in California, then all I can say is they're getting the governor they deserve.

[Jean Bart]

Fred App has hit a home run.

[Anonymous]

Fred App is all wet.

It's pretty clear that "Those people that I have offended, I want to say to them I am deeply sorry about that" means he's sorry. Why would he apologize to women he groped that liked it?

[D Lusional]

And yet somehow I fell we'd still be better off with Arnold than Davis

[Krusty]

doot doot doodle de de dut doot doo doot

I always wondered how that was spelled. Thanks!

[David 2]

Doesn't change my vote... I'm still voting for Mary Carey.

Oh, wait a minute... I don't live in California! I can't vote! NUTS!!!

[Peter]

He should have offered to meet with a delegation of women, then he should have offered to let them grope him. Fair is fair.

[HH]

Thus far the Big Fat Hypocrisy Award goes to NOW for suggesting he is completely unfit for office because he groped some women... hopefully their members, who apparently were born yesterday, will buy into it.

[LB]

This just makes him a member of good standing in the Kennedy Clan.

[Don]

"And the difference between the accusations vs. Arnold and those against Clinton is that there hasn't been a well funded, organized, years-long campaign to destroy Arnold's career by paying people to make up similar charges."

Who was paid to make up charges against Clinton? Or is that just a lie?

[Steve]

And aren't there a number of credible allegations against Clinton -- at least as credible as the ones against Arnold -- by women who were clearly not paid, women who are not anonymous, and women who accuse him of far worse than groping?

Just because Clinton did worse, doesn't mean it's OK for Arnold to grope people. It does mean NOW are a bunch of hypocrits, and it means that Fred App is full of shit.

[Matt Welch]

Bustamante's statement, as e-mailed to me from his campaign:

?These charges of sexual battery and harassment are serious and recent. Arnold says he thought he was being playful. He says today, he understands his actions were offensive.

These actions are more than just offensive. The California Penal Code says: ?Any person who touches an intimate part of another person against the will of the person touched ? is guilty of misdemeanor sexual battery.?

More importantly, multiple allegations by these women will dog Arnold and make him less effective in dealing with the issues confronting California.?

[Matt Welch]

Er, those last two paragraphs should be indented as well.

[joe]

Don,

I suggest you read David Brock's book.

[PapayaSF]

Essential differences, in approximate order of seriousness:

1) Arnold hasn't lied about it under oath. (Why is pointing that out "partisan bullshit"?)

2) No one is accusing Arnold of rape, or of having operatives threaten women who might talk, and there's evidence Clinton did both.

3) Arnold didn't do any of this while holding office, and *in* the office, on taxpayer's time.

4) Arnold hasn't trumpeted himself as a protector of women unlike the Evil People in the other party, like Clinton did, including signing laws on sexual harassment that ended up being used against him later on.

[Anonymous]

It's not that some of Clinton's accusers weren't frauds, or bribed, or both. It's that many of them were very credible women, and rather than apologize, he did his best to smear them.

[hpearce]

Come on Gillespie,

If you can't interpret it, I will.
"Because that's not what I'm trying to do" refers to what he is trying to do - run for govenor and that it is the important issue and that everything else is basically background noise.

Until there are specific legal complaints filed, there is no need for him to apologize for specific actions merely claimed by others. On the other hand, it might be stupid to claim that he never did anything "wrong".

Hell Nick, Even I did 1 thing wrong 🙂 .

The result is a generic apology so "we" can move on.

[Robert Tagorda]

Fred App: In a sixty-three-word statement, Arnold used the word "I" ten times. He also constructed his sentences in the active voice. How much more personal accountability do you need?

[Thorley Winston]

Regardless of whether it helps him or hurts him come October 7, this latest development creates a golden opportunity for hypocrisy on the part of a) Republicans who attacked Bill Clinton as unfit for office due to such behavior and b) Democrats who supported Bill Clinton but think Arnold is unfit for office due to such behavior.

Actually that's only half-right on the hypocrisy charge. As an earlier poster pointed out - no one has accused Soontobegovernor Schwarzenagger of lying, perjury, or witness tampering - the latter two of which were the charges for which ex-president Clinton was rightfully impeached (which Schwarzenagger wrongly opposed BTW). Those few conservatives who think that sexual improprieties automatically make one unsuited for office are probably voting for Tom McClintock anyways.

However Democrats who opposed the impeachment of Clinton really had no grounds other than claiming that it was part of his "private life" - a charge which never stopped them from going after Clarence Thomas and former Senator Bob Packwood for alleged sexual improprieties.

So much as one might like to create a false moral symmetry between the two, the hypocrisy charge can really only properly can be leveled at Democrats since the two cases are different on the merits.

For what it's worth, I doubt this will be a big issue since Schwarzenegger pretty much owed up to it in most people's minds without going into the details and a lot of people are going to see this as just a last deperate bid to throw mud the weekend before the election (sort of like 11th hour revisiting of then Governor Bush's 24-year old DUI/DWI which had been known for about six months). This thing is a nonissue and if anything will probably work out to Schwarzenegger's benefit in the end.

Just my $0.02.

[Thorley Winston]

Arnold hasn't trumpeted himself as a protector of women unlike the Evil People in the other party, like Clinton did, including signing laws on sexual harassment that ended up being used against him later on.

Speaking of which - does anyone else remember what the mainstream media dubbed the 1992 elections and why?

[Gene Berkman]

I am voting for the Boy Scout - Tom McClintock. To find out why, look at http://www.majority.com
Stop harassment of women and other taxpayers!

[Anonymous]

Thorley,

Did you read the LAT story? These aren't "alleged improprieties." They're alleged assaults -- actually, the crime in California is called "sexual battery." Not usually a felony, but definitely criminal.

Yes, I know Clinton probably did worse, but that doesn't make Arnold's offenses minor.

[Hank]

Groping is sexual battery? Good god, what a load of crap.

If a woman groped me, I'd be flattered, then I'd slap her ass and fondle her breasts.

[Mia Culpa]

Christ, did you hear that speech he gave? Any second I expected him to burst into tears and start whining, "I've been a b-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-d boy..."

[Jean Bart]

Thorley Winston,

Well, remember Packwood was also caught funneling money to his ex-wife in an imporper fashion. What is interesting is that before it all broke, he was a darling of NOW due to his pro-choice voting record.

[Dan]

Did you read the LAT story? These aren't "alleged improprieties." They're alleged assaults

Call them what you will. The point is, it's the exact same kind of stuff Clinton was accused of doing to women -- groping them without permission. If that's "assault", then Clinton was accused of countless "assaults", and NOW, along with most Democrats, defended him. If it's truly assault, the women should press charges. Until they do, I'm uninterested.

Arnie isn't accused of rape and (more importantly) hasn't perjured himself or obstructed justice. I'm not a Republican; I wanted Clinton impeached because he flagrantly broke the law while in office. Arnold hasn't done that, and I see little reason to suspect he will.

[Jeff Wimble]

From the President of the United States, I demand the highest of standards.

From the Governor of California, I am willinging to take what I can get.

[Jeff Wimble]

Oh well. At least Arnold can spell correctly.

[Mark Borok]

I don't think he shouldn't be governor because he groped some women. I think he shouldn't be governor because he is inexperienced.

[dc]

You know what - Arnold committed crimes - multiple ones if the allegations are true. So whether he lied about it or not makes no difference. Clinton was alleged to have committed a crime. It's so good to see the rule of law republicans in action when their man gets credibly accused of this stuff.

[Dexter Westbrook]

Someone help refresh my memory -- has Arnold ever driven into a pond with a woman in his car, gotten out and left her to drown?

[Steve]

This has nothing to do with Clinton.

Fact: Arnold is a sex offender, under California state law.
Fact: Arnold isn't in office - Arnold is running for office.

Arnold is running for governor, and everyone who plans to vote for him will do so *knowing* they voted for a criminal. This is not about interrupting an administration, already in progress - it's about being faced with a choice on election day: Do I vote for a criminal, or do I vote for someone else?

What's especially disgusting is how he shrugs off his behavior as merely "offending" those women (rather than using the more accurate word "assault"), and then deflects the issue by invoking the "trash politics" catch-phrase. Really, that's not an apology, nor is that taking responsibility. He's blaming "politics" for the exposure of his own criminal behavior, rather than blaming himself. Pathetic.

And this guy wants to be governor? If he had no star power, he would dismissed as yet another of the 135 invisible candidates. As it's been pointed out elsewhere, he doesn't even understand the difference between federal and state gun laws. What's worse is that he's about to be elected with 60-70% of the public voting against him.

[Fritz]

True fact: no one is a criminal until found guilty by a court of law.

Calling Arnold a criminal is a smear, if not libel.

Was Arnold married when he allegedly groped those women allegedly against their wishes? Which of his alleged victims wishes to step forward and prosecute him now?

I voted already in California, and NOT for Arnold. Still, it astounds me to see him attacked as a criminal and smeared for behavior that should not even be illegal, IMHO. The law is an ass.

[Jean Bart]

So much for Republicans and their ethic of "personal responsibility."

[Alex]

Let's hope Arnie can survive without the support of the powerful Analingus lobby.

[s.m. koppelman]

Odd "assumption" there, David, one easily turned to mush if you read the LAT and Premiere articles in question, which Schwarzenegger has not challenged. The groping allegedly happened many, many years ago, some years ago, a few years ago, a couple of years ago, and just this year. There's a thirty-year litany of groping, pawing, and so forth running from his bodybuilding career right on up to the Terminator 3 publicity tour.

[ed]

Oh please, Arnold is percieved as being right wing because that's the team he joined. What that has to do with hating women is unclear to me.

Who's defending Clinton? Arnold's abhorent on his own terms. You fondle a woman without her consent, verbally assault her and think you're just playing, you're sick and don't deserve consideration.

Where's the line you're gonna draw? Asault you can let slide but perjury is NOT OK?

Please. That's the way you think, you don't deserve my consideration either.

[NCO]

ed: You obviously think that being right-wing means you hate women as you have taken anonymous accounts of piggish behaviour (by a right-winger) and exaggerated these at the same level of sexual assalt. That is libel and slander and tells a lot about your leftwing bigotry.

What Arnold did was wrong and each of those women deserve a personal appology, feeling ashamed and not letting it happen again. That's the line I draw.

For perjury, I draw the line at criminal penalties - and for public officials, impeachment.

[bennett]

I have been trolling the net today reading about this last minute Democratic offensive, and found this little quote from Davis:

"I don't see how anyone can admire Adolf Hitler. Any decent American has to be offended by that phrase."

My question to the Californians is this: Where the hell did you find a slimeball like Davis, and how did you elect him governor, for crying out loud.

Disclaimer: I could care less whether Arnold gets elected or not. It is an interesting story though.

[bennett]

By the way, joe, which Brock book are you talking about. Didn't he write two?

[NCO]

>>Feeling ashamed and not letting it happen again.

I mean Arnold should feel ashamed and not let it happen again, not the women (sorry for the confusion). He did the right thing by applogizing and publically admiting he did it.

[Jean Bart]

Thursday evening he also responded to questions surrounding comments he allegedly made in the 1970s to a film producer working on a book proposal in which Schwarzenegger reportedly expressed his admiration for Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.

"I hated the regime -- hate the regime, the Third Reich, the whole Nazi philosophy -- have always fought against it," Schwarzenegger said.

"I despise everything that the Nazis stood for or Hitler stood for."

A story published in Friday's online edition of The New York Times quotes Schwarzenegger from book transcripts as saying, "I admired Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education up to power. And I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it."

[Californio]

Of all people, Susan Estrich - feminist, law professor, and campaign manager of the Dukkakis presidential bid, states in the L.A. Times today that A.S., on the facts reported, did NOT appear to break any sexual assault laws, or sexual harassment laws either. She then goes on to lambast the Times: money quote:
"But here is my prediction, as a Californian: It's too late for the Los Angeles Times' charges to have much impact. People have made up their minds. This attack, coming as late as it does, from a newspaper that has been acting more like a cheerleader for Gray Davis than an objective source of information, will be dismissed by most people as more Davis-like dirty politics."

[Xrlq]

Gene:

It's all well and good that you like McClintock better than Schwarzenegger. Others might like some of the even more obscure candidates better than that. But unless this serious of late hits utterly squashes Schwarzenegger, McClintock doesn't have a chance of winning. And even if Schwarzenegger does implode, don't assume the Democrat hit men don't have a contingency plan. I'm sure they have plenty of puke to throw on McClintock if/when the time comes.

Hank:

Technically, any unconsented touching is a battery. Ergo, any unconsented touching of a sexual part is a sexual battery.

DC and Steve:

Where the hell do you get off claiming as a "fact" that Arnold is a sexual offender? The L.A. Times's hit piece is full of uncorroborated allegations. Arnold has admitted generally to having "behaved badly" on occasion. He has not admitted to any of the alleged illegal conduct.

FACT: You don't know what the hell you are talking about.

[Lee Dise]

Jeezus, Gillespie, can't you get anything right?

*What* opportunity for "Republican hypocrisy"? Is Schwarzanegger lying under oath in a deposition or in front of a grand jury about his behavior? Is he sending his minions off on media errands to lie on his behalf? Is he suborning perjury?

No, to all these questions. So exactly how, then, is this situation analogous to Clinton's?

You're so anxious to nail Republicans for hypocrisy that you are forced to ignore historical events. Can't you at least wait until Arnold commits a felony? *Then* you'd have a basis for a comparison.

[ed]

I could really give a damn whetther or not he broke a law. He's despicable either way. If that's what we're going to do, go around making petty little excuses for him , Fine. It's sad, but fine. But come on, that doesn't change the fact that he treats people like toys. There are what, over 130 candidates in the recall, and this is the best excuse for a candidate anyone could come up with?

[Xrlq]

The whole "admire" thing is a crock, which probably derived from a language mistake anyway. Anyone who's tried to communicate in a foreign language has said something idiotic at one time or another. In this case, the reason is obvious: two German words - "verehren" and "bewundern" - are both commonly translated into English as "admire." "Verehren" denotes full-blown admiration; "bewundern" merely denotes marvel and awe over the abilities of anyone, including an adversary. Taken in context, it's pretty clear that Arnold was talking about a skill that he "bewundered," not a virtue he "verehred."

[DC]

"Where the hell do you get off claiming as a "fact" that Arnold is a sexual offender? The L.A. Times's hit piece is full of uncorroborated allegations. Arnold has admitted generally to having "behaved badly" on occasion. He has not admitted to any of the alleged illegal conduct."

I didn't say it was a fact, I said he's a criminal "IF THE ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE." So I don't know why you're in such a hissy-fit

[nm156]

The devil is in the details, eh? Or in this case the translation, if you assume he was answering in German (Austrian?).

[DC]

I still don't understand why all these republicans are worked up over "lying under oath." Do Republicans not care that Clinton was credibly accused of sexually assaulting women? Well, Arnold has also been accused of the same. Whether he lied about it under oath or not is beside the fucking point.

[Lee Dise]

DC says:

> "I still don't understand why all these republicans are worked up over "lying under oath."

I think I can answer that one, though why anyone has trouble understanding this one is beyond me. Republicans believe in the rule of law. Lying under oath, in a court of law, is perjury, and that's a felony. So is suborning perjury and so is obstructing justice, but I really think one felony is sufficient. A president's job is to uphold the law. I think anyone, even a liberal, ought to see the problem with having, as the nation's supreme law enforcer, someone who commits felonies.

I don't think I can make it any easier than that without s-p-e-l-l-i-n-g o-u-t e-a-c-h w-o-r-d.

[Anonymous]

DRUDGE is reporting that Arnie praised HITLER in 1975 in an unfinished book.

If elected he will be joining thousands of elected Democrats who have praised Stalin, Lenin, Mugabe and Castro -- some as early as last week.

Developing...

[Thorley Winston]

Actually the New York Times which broke the story also included this little detail which seems to have not been as widely reported:

Mr. Schwarzenegger, in a telephone interview on Thursday, said he did not recall making any of the comments attributed to him or engaging in any of the behavior described by Mr. Butler.

"Let you tell you something: it's one of those things that if you come from that background, you get accused a lot of times of being that, of being a Nazi," said Mr. Schwarzenegger, who grew up in Austria and whose father was a member of the Nazi Party.

"So you know," he continued, "I despise anything that Hitler stands for, anything he has done, hated the Nazism, hated what was done during the Second World War."

Mr. Schwarzenegger said he did consider Hitler to be "a great public speaker" but someone who had used his talent "for something negative."

In his book proposal, Mr. Butler addressed that point, quoting Mr. Schwarzenegger saying, "I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it."

But early this morning, Mr. Butler called back, saying he had driven back to his New Hampshire home and found another transcript of the interview, with different wording: "I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for his way of getting to the people and so on. But I didn't admire him for what he did with it. It's very hard to say who I admire, who are my heroes."

Mr. Butler that his transcribers had had difficulty rendering Mr. Schwarzenegger's remarks because of his accent and said the only way to resolve the discrepancy was to listen to the tapes, which are in Mr. Schwarznegger's possession.

From this is looks like there were definite issues with transcribing Schwarzenegger's comments due to his accent (which was far more pronounced in the 1970?s when the interview took place) as well as possible language issues which are common with new immigrants who adopt English as a second language (listen to pretty much any Schwarzenegger speech and how he interjects ?the? in front of nouns in his sentences which do not require an article in English but is quite common in his native language). It?s entirely possible then that (a) the transcriber may have mis-transcribed Schwarzenegger's comments due to his more pronounced accent and (b) his comments came out differently then intended due to his recently learning English.

Unless somebody is seriously going to claim that guy?s a Nazi sympathizer (his support of gun control, government education, and opposition to removing racial classifications notwithstanding), this seems like an 11th hour smear job.

Full article is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/03/national/03BOOK.html?ex=1065758400&en=60e7a8c51d702e16&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE >New York Times

[Gwyn Thomas]

When should a person realise you should keep your grubby hands off others? I recall I was about three years old.

[Crank]

The opportunities for hypocrisy are much more pronounced among the Clinton defenders/Arnold critics. First of all, for the reasons noted above, Arnold has taken a measure of responsibility here and hasn't singled out any women for smearing (though he doesn't admit to all charges made by all anonymous sources), whereas Clinton's coverup was the problem. Second, a lot of the harshest Clinton critics are either voting McClintock or accepting Arnold as the least-worst solution, not holding pep rallies declaring him the bestest president ever. This reflects badly on Arnold, but not so badly you'd want Davis or Bustamove as the alternative. Third, we can tolerate behavior from governors and congresspersons that we wouldn't accept from a president, whose integrity is more important for a variety of reasons.

[NCO]

Nobody cares. This all about SMEARING Arnold. He is a right-winger, so he must hate women, the poor, love Hitler, etc. He is probably a racist too (like Rush) as he is Republican.

That is what they think. They don't say it publically, but at any dinner party pretend to be a hard-core leftist and they will accept you as a comrade and tell you what they REALLY think.

[twistedmerkin]

You're against groping, Jean Bart? I thought you were French. I'd like to be groped by Melinda, above.

[david]

I'm assuming that Arnold's "groping" occurred many, many years ago. Were the ultra-stringent anti-"groping" laws on the books back then? And as pointed out above, the "culture" that Arnold operated in during those years was much, much more permissive of all kinds of behavior. And where the hell were the "victims" of his "groping" during the last two months? Did they all somehow miraculously "remember" what happened to them just this last weekend? And if their allegations are true, then why are they not seeking criminal charges against Arnold?

And re: charges that Arnold is "inexperienced" and should therefore not be governor...if you'll remember, Gray Davis is arguably the most "experienced" politician in California, and look at what all of that "experience" has brought: a bankrupt state, recall by the voters, widespread disgust with his policies, etc. I think this is an example of the voters opting (probably) for the politician that they DON'T know, rather than the politican that they know - and for a reason.

[ed]

Nobody cares. This all about SMEARING Bill. He is a left-winger, so he must hate women, the rich, love Hitler/Castro/Stalin, etc. He is probably a race-baiter too (like Rev. Al) as he is Democrat.

That is what they think. They don't say it publically, but at any dinner party pretend to be a hard-core rightist and they will accept you as a comrade and tell you what they REALLY think.

[NCO]

Maybe or maybe they will tell you how our Chief Law Enforcement Officer abused the power of his office to cover up possible rape and how he lied to a grand jury.

But then again, like I said, Arnie is percieved as being right-wing - so a private citizen running for state office grabbing a women's ass and the admitting and apologizing for it is the SAME or WORSE than the President of the United States raping a women in past, using his power to surpress the truth and committing a felony in front of a grand jury about an affair he had as President.

Why? Because he is right-wing so he hates women. See how it works? And I guess I am a "hypocrite" for dare questioning that one person is worse than another.

[atl]

i think all you republicans are fucking idiots. i wish arnold fondled and licked all of your daughters' and wifes' breasts while you condemn Clinton's adultery because it's against the bullshit ten commandments that were written by uncultured slaves over 2000 years ago

[joe]

"True fact: no one is a criminal until found guilty by a court of law."

Meyer Lansky wasn't a criminal? The government has the power to retroactively alter history?

"Republicans believe in the rule of law?" Which ones? Ollie North? The White House cover blower? Richard Nixon? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are some...

[joe]

And I didn't mean to let Arnold off the hook just because of a press appearance. Merely to compliment his speech writers - pitch perfect, fellas. Arnold hired himself some good help.

[Groped]

Clinton did it, too.