Last Words On…

…Arnold and the old double standard, from Cathy Young.

Comments

[Jim Walsh]

A few weeks ago Drudge could barely contain his glee at the news that Jack Osborne (son of Ozzy) has a drug problem: "See what happens when your father is a rock 'n' roll degenerate," or words to that effect.

A few weeks later, Drudge joins the pack of Repubs falling over themselves to defend their buddy Rusty Limbaugh.

Hypocrites? No...*goddamn* hypocrites.

[Ken]

"...Clinton's consensual affair with Monica Lewinsky..."

I thought that feminists preach that no young woman can "consent" to an affair with a man who holds power over her. If the CEO of a large company had an affair with a young intern what would the feminist reaction be?

[Gene 6-Pack]

I suppose it doesn't matter that the primary charges against Clinton were not that he had sex on the side, but that he lied under oath and that he used the power of offices, first the Guv's office, then the White House, to deflect charges and, of course, to pimp for him. We may never know how many of his accusers were silenced by the riffle of FBI files that repose, to this day, in the DNC computer system.
I can hardly wait for the next Republican football player to run for office against charges that the after play pat on the butt was "More than was called for."

[joe]

Thanks for clearing that up, Gene. I'd forgotten how fair and polite everyone was to Clinton before he testified at the hearing in the Jones suit.

[thoreau]

Joe and Gene illustrate perfectly the Clinton Rohrschach test. Clinton was either a fiend or the victim of persecution, depending on whom you ask.

What if he was a flawed man and lousy President who deserved a lot of criticism but not all of the criticism leveled at him? I'll pause as both sides throw rotten tomatoes at me.

[joe]

Hey, I voted for Tsongas. And spent most of the 90s criticising Clinton. You're pulling a Cathy Young there, thoreau.

[fyodor]

Joe,

But you're defending Clinton now. Is your implication that if people aren't fair and polite to the president, he gets to lie under oath?

[Citizen]

"Last Words On Arnold and the old double standard, from Cathy Young."

Promise?

[joe]

I'm not defending Clinton, I'm attacking (some of) his detractors. Not for opposing Clinton, but for the way that they did it.

[fyodor]

"I'm not defending Clinton, I'm attacking (some of) his detractors." ??? That IS defending Clinton. Unless you're attacking them for things that have nothing to do with him, which you're not. If someone was pointing a gun at you and I shot him first, wouldn't you say I was defending you? True, there's other, more direct, ways you could defend Clinton, but you still are defending him. It's only because I know you're not as, uh, unsmart, as you sound with that defense that I agree with Thoreau that you're being partisan.

[ImpeachBush]

.. Clinton lied to the nation about a blowjob which is no one's business but his and he gets impeached ..

.. Bush lied to the world, throws the US into a war that will be about as easy to get out of as Vietnam or the Drug War and he's Mr. Wonderful ..

.. when Clinton lied, nobody died..

[joe]

You should worry less about partisan implications and more about truth, fairness, and decency. The constant manufacture of sleaze against the Clintons was outrageous, and should not be glossed over because of amoral "enemy of my enemy" jockeying.

People who engage in those sort of attacks should be called on it.

[fyodor]

I seek truth and am fascinated by the obstacles partisanship places in its way.

If you like, you can tell me again why PJ, KW and HB all lack credibility. I can't guarantee I'll read it, though, as I fully admit it's not the most exciting topic for me! 🙂

[Jason Ligon]

Hey, Impeach. Did you forget about that asprin factory?

What depresses me most is the core truth that a winner takes all system makes a lot of this type of behavior horribly reasonable.

Look, if you are a feminist and your primary concern is abortion, Clinton gets your vote over nearly any Republican. It does not matter what else he did, just like it didn't matter when you supported Ted Kennedy any of the last bagillion times he's been elected. What matters is the vote you want.

I used to laugh at such hypocrisy. Then I really sat down and thought about what I would do if I found a candidate who was generally a slime, but whom I knew would strive to roll back the state in a big way. Gotta tell ya, kids. I could forgive a lot for some hope.

Voter self interest can be a complex thing, and sometimes voting against the devil is necessary, and that can mean supporting a lesser demon, and even pardoning his sins in public.

[Jean Bart]

Hmm, I have never understood "L'affair Clinton" - that is either side. It makes very little sense to me.

[Anonymous]

I hate to waste my time arguing against someone who seriously thinks Bush should be impeached, but just a few quick points.

Clinton did not get impeached for "lying to the nationa about a blowjob which is no one's business" He got impeached for lying under oath and obstructing justice--felonies. And, under laws Clinton supported and signed, being asked such questions is the peoples' business.

Many may disagree with Bush's claims about the war on Iraq, but no one has proved (because they can't) that he believed he was telling falsehoods when he made them. Adults understand that if you disagree with someone politically, it doesn't mean your opponent is lying.

The ultimate effects of the war are, of course, uncertain, but in the short term it's deposed an unstable, vicious mass-murderer and given 23 million at least a hope of living free. Sorry this offends so many people.

[Jack]

Bill Clinton will be the Rutherford B. Hayes of the 20th Century: two terms of steady economic growth, moderate corruption, a few minor military skirmishes, and completely forgotten in another 100 years except by historians of the period.

[fyodor]

James Ligon,

That's very honest, more honest than most would be, and I'd probably say the same for myself.

[Don]

"The constant manufacture of sleaze against the Clintons was outrageous, . . ."

The Clintons manufactured that sleaze themselves. Perhaps you should blame them.

[Thorley Winston]

From the Cathy Young article:

After revelations that 15 women had come forward to accuse Schwarzenegger of making crude sexual advances toward them during his movie career

What are the names of the fifteen women who had ?come forward?? I thought that only a couple of women had come forward with a number of anonymous allegations ? which is not ?coming forward? in any meaningful sense.

Also regarding the only two examples of a supposed ?double standard? on the conservative side cited in Young?s column:

Even virtue czar William Bennett was muted in his criticism of Schwarzenegger's misdeeds, emphasizing that sinners deserve a second chance.

I?d like to know what William Bennett actually said rather than Cathy Young?s (mis)characterization of it. Besides which I do not recall William Bennett (whether one agrees with him or not) ever saying that he did not believe that a repentant sinner did not deserve a second chance. In which case since Governor Schwarzenegger admitted to bad behavior and has not been proven to repeat it, it would be consistent for William Bennett to believe that the latter deserved a second chance.

In his weblog, Schwarzenegger enthusiast Andrew Sullivan explained the differences that he believed favored Schwarzenegger over Clinton.

Something Cathy Young omitted from her supposed revelation of a ?double-standard? is the little detail that Andrew Sullivan (much like Governor Schwarzenegger) was (wrongly) opposed to the impeachment of former President Clinton for perjury and witness-tampering, apparently believing that there is a ?private behavior? exemption when it comes to perjury and witness tampering. Even though Andrew Sullivan was wrong to oppose impeachment, how then is it then a ?double standard? for him to also oppose going after Schwarzenegger when he was against going after Clinton?

If Cathy Young wants to play the ?both sides are just as guilty of hypocrisy? card, it might help if she actually did some research to find examples of ?hypocrisy? instead of trying to deceive her readers with half-truths.

[Jean Bart]

Those who want to create loopholes, exceptions, etc. for the politicians, radio hosts, etc. they support always will. Thus you've got Ann Coulter defending Rush Limbaugh as a victim of drug addiction because of back pain, etc.

[Unknown Liberal]

Hmmm, after its all said and done, if Slick Willey could run again in 2004, he would beat the pants of Bush and the next *pretty* intern in the white house.

That is why the clinton haters are more bitter than bush haters.

[Anonymous]

I wish Clinton could run again. Him against W would be exciting, and hardly the wipeout the Unknown Liberal posits. Don't forget, neither of these guys ever got half the vote. I'd personally put my money on W, giving him a 6 to 5 chance of winning.

[Gene 6-Pack]

I remember back when everyone was accusing Nixon of shaking the country to its core with Wategate. As much as I detested Nixon for his liberal policies, I reluctantly said, but with no response, "But what about Dick Tuck?"
Asshats look that up before you assign partisanship to my arguments. Respond to the specific. Do not, when the topic is Clinton, argue that it is snowing in Delaware.

[Rick Barton]

Justice prevailed in a poetic manner with these two episodes. Arnie admitted to making a few crude sexual advances in the film biz, and that got the reaction it deserved from the California electorate. Clinton purgered himself to a Grand Jury, and that got the reaction it deserved as well.

[joe]

Jack, we could do worse.

[Jean Bart]

The term is "perjured" I think.

[Rick Barton]

Thank you Jean Bart, Sorry about that. MY native language. How embarrassing.

[fyodor]

Clinton probably purgered himself too!!

[joe]

purgered - past tense of purger - to respond to a legal inquiry by sticking one's fingers down one's throat.