Rand Paul

"Why Does Rand Paul Keep Attacking Bill Clinton About Sex?"

|

Hat tip: Instapundit.

The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza offers four reasons and legal blogger Ann Althouse offers four different ones:

Althouse writes:

Cillizza came up with:

1. It revs up the base…
2. It's a way to get at Hillary…
3. It's who Rand is…
4. It's personal…. Before reading those reasons — which are detailed at the link — I set a goal for myself to come up with 4 more reasons. Off the top of my head, here:

1. He believes in the principle of workplace equality and is dismayed at how predatory individuals seeking personal sexual pleasure have disrupted the meritocracy that should prevail. 

2. Someone on the Republican side needs to be able to counter the "war on women" propaganda of the Democrats, and no one else seems to have the guts or skill to do it properly. 

3. He dislikes the idea that the distinction of first female President should go to a woman who leveraged her power through a male who she knew was taking advantage of women.

4. He knows that if the Democrats had material like this to use against a Republican candidate, they would have no mercy. 

Read the whole thing—and add to her list—at Althouse.

NEXT: Iraqi Suicide Bomber Accidentally Kills Own Students

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Boy did you ever light the “Come All Ye Trolls and Defend The Greatest Living President, Clinton” beacon or what?

    1. “Come All Ye Trolls and Defend The Greatest Living President, Clinton”

      Who could possibly be idiotic enough to contend that…

      Wait…

      1, 2, 3, 4…5?

      Oh my God.

  2. Is there any more certain way to run to the front of the GOP pack than to appear unafraid of the Clintons? I mean, probably not good for his long-term survival, but great for his career.

    1. According to Tony w/o spaces, Arkancide is a LIEbertarian, Right Wing, Kochtopussy myth.

      Sure, people get killed in “robberies” in which nothing is taken and no one hears the gunshots in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in America (Georgetown), but pay no attention. Just because people who know the Clinton’s dirt turn up dead doesn’t mean it is anything more than a coincidence.

  3. As a fan of Paul’s and someone who does not like Bill Clinton I think Paul should knock this off. Even if it is Hillary he runs against making these jabs at Bill at this stage seems like how defenders of Obama weigh in with ‘but Bush!’ going on six years of that man being out of office.

    1. If Hillary Clinton is going to run on the fact t hat she is a “woman”, then she ought to have to answer for her behavior in defending the loathsome behavior of her husband.

      Moreover, Clinton will no doubt use the appeal of “you get Bill too” as part of her campaign. That makes Bill’s behavior a legitimate political issue.

      If Bill Clinton were a private sector CEO who was guilty of this stuff and married to Hillary, I think it would make this stuff more off limits. But not when Hillary Clinton made her political career defending him.

      1. “If Hillary Clinton is going to run on the fact t hat she is a “woman”, then she ought to have to answer for her behavior in defending the loathsome behavior of her husband.”

        I am not sure how that follows.

        “Clinton will no doubt use the appeal of “you get Bill too” as part of her campaign. That makes Bill’s behavior a legitimate political issue.”

        Sure, if she does that then Paul could go at it. My point is that doing that at this point seems odd.

        1. Now *is* the time; Clinton could well decide not to run.

        2. not odd at all, not when the left harps on the ‘war on women’ thing. Sorry, but there is a long list of Dem men whose actions have done women harm; contrast them to a couple of Repubs who said stupid things. The left invited this; Althouse’s #2 point is dead on.

        3. I am not sure how that follows.

          Because when you are running on your identity, the content of that identity matters.

          Sure, if she does that then Paul could go at it. My point is that doing that at this point seems odd.

          Since when does he have to wait for her? There is nothing wrong with pre-emtpively taking away or lessening that advantage. It is called playing to win.

          1. “It is called playing to win.”

            Many people will call it ‘being a jerk.’

            1. Hillary is good at dodging Bosnian sniper fire. I’m sure she can handle a few cheap shots. 😉

              1. I could care less whether Hillary can handle cheap shots, I want Rand Paul to win, and I do not think attacking her husband’s behavior that was hashed out decades ago with the public shrugging a big meh is going to help that happen.

                1. Then you are an idiot.

                  Hillary has a lot of skeletons in her closet. Bill knows where her skeletons are buried. In enabling his predatory behavior, Hillary has to either choose between pissing off her base of support or throwing Bill overboard.

                  And if she starts to turn on Bill, he could fuck her over. He’d take his power base with him. Worse, he could nuke her in a death blossom of scandal; her commodity dealing in Arkansas was likely completely corrupt.

                  Coupled with her disastrous mismanagement of the State department, and she could lose everything; her political ambitions, the annuity that she gets as Bill’s wife, her reputation.

                  And, it goes straight to her character; she tolerated and turned a blind eye to violence and workplace sexual harrasement.

                  She will survive these attacks, but her attempts to weasel out of being held accountable are going to harm her terribly.

                  1. I’m sure, however, however she does react, it will be with all the aplomb with which she dodged sniper fire in that airport in Bosnia.

                  2. Hillary has a lot of skeletons in her closet.

                    Not even in the closet! They’re hanging from trees in full public view, and the idiots in the press pretend that they’re nothing to worry about.

                    -jcr

                  3. “Hillary has to either choose between pissing off her base”

                    If you have not learned in two decades time that this matter is not going to ‘p*ss off’ Hillary’s base I do not know what I can say today to dissuade you of that.

                    Everything you are saying was said during the impeachment drama, and during her 08 run, with none of the effects you seem to think inevitable.

                    1. I’m afraid I agree with Bo here.

                      You guys (John, Tarran, etc) are basically trying to say “These things are important.” What Bo is saying is, “Maybe so, but no one cares.”

                      I agree with all the points this makes about her character. The problem is that the nation had an opportunity to consider these points and they largely gave the Clintons a pass. Rand is essentially throwing a red flag in the 4th quarter and asking for a review of a game 3 seasons ago.

                      At this point, Rand trying to go on the attack about this stuff looks petty- like someone who can’t live in the now.

                    2. You said it much better than I could, so I will let you deal with the wrath of Paul’s ‘defenders’ (with friends like these…) now.

                    3. I think the problem is that of hypocrisy. Rand is essentially calling Clinton a hypocrite for violating certain principles, the Left shrugs it off because they don’t think principles matter as much as getting things done.

                      The Left is very big on calling out SoCon hypocrites who espouse family values and traditional morality and conservative principles and then betray those ideals.

                      It doesn’t work the other way around, however, because the Left are pragmatists and adhere to situational ethics and moral relativism – they have no principles to betray and therefore cannot be called hypocrites.

                      I think that’s the same problem with complaining about Obama ignoring the Constitution when he sees fit – only people who hold the principles of the Constitution in high regard give a shit. There are plenty of people who applaud Obama for doing what needs to be done and don’t see why the Constitution should be an impediment to his taking action.

                      Rand is talking as if principles matter, and to some people they don’t.

                    4. It’s not aimed at swaying the low information voters.

                      It’s aimed at the nomenklatura.

                      And judging by the amount of attention this is getting from the nomenklatura, it’s working.

                    5. no – this is relevant again with the passage of time. put in the perspective of that Freemen article a few days ago, “rise of the libertarians”, the stale haze of the baby boomer saga is thinning out and there is an opportune window for fresh eyes and narrative on the clintons.

                2. Isn’t he really attacking the fact that Hillary hid and colluded with the fact that Billy was a quasi-rapist (depending on what stories your believe) which makes her a hypocritical harpy.

                3. By doing this, he is pre-emptively undercutting the war on women bull that Hilary will run on.

            2. the people who see it as jerkish are not inclined to vote for the non-Hillary anyway. You cant’ ride the woman wave tolerating things no woman would tolerate.

              1. ride the woman wave tolerating things no woman would tolerate.

                Kinky.

                1. I agree with John here, and less with Overt and Bo C. I think bringing it up is less about the person but more about the principle. Having a woman who enables her husband to take advantage of other women be a champion in the ‘war on women’ is as preposterous as having Chris Mathews run around as a champ for racial equality. I would totally bring that up. Not only that, I would also bring up the fact that Billy told the late Teddy K to not endorse BO “he is supposed to be carrying our bags” (paraphrase). As to whether this will torpedo her campaign like the incident in the 90s did to Herman Cain, I doubt it will have that affect. At the very least, it should expose some hypocrisy in the ‘war on women’. Rand can make it personal if he ties in his family – all the women in his family, etc. etc. My only qualm is why is this coming out now and not next year when she announces that she’s running? American’s have short attention spans. Only thing I can think of is he doesn’t want the press to make a big deal about it for a couple of hours then bury it – (see George Bush’s DUI incident, though that was much closer to election day, I believe Rove leaked it out before the last debate for that purpose.)

                  1. ^ Also agree with JerrysKids

        4. What’s so mysterious about having a candidate answer for their behavior, especially their behavior in a previous campaign and/or in a previous political scandal?

          Hillary knowingly and intentionally, for personal gain, engaged in misleading if not outright lying to the public around Bill’s bimbos. Seems relevant to me.

          1. “Seems relevant to me.”

            We are talking about things that happened two decades ago, and bringing them up at a point when the woman is not even running. You do not think that might strike a lot of people as going out of your way to be nasty?

            1. Yes, Bo, intentionally lying to the public and trying to smear a woman you knew was telling the truth is relevant to Hillary’s fitness for office. It doesn’t matter how long ago it was.

              And it is not like she has ever apologized or admitted any fault, shown remorse or given any indication she learned form the experience or is any different a person now than she was then.

              1. John, like most partisans you really are tone-deaf to anyone who does not think like you. You have admitted that on the eve of the election you thought Romney had it in the bag. You just knew the shutdown was going to make the public swoon over the GOP. I bet in 96 you thought impeachment was going to go over like gangbusters.

                Look, I agree Hillary is at BEST a sad, pathetic figure. But what I think and what you think amounts to you know what, two votes. People out there think differently than we do, and what makes us chuckle or nod our head often makes them shake theirs in disapproval. I am telling you, this is not a good strategy for Paul, people will see this as mean spirited, easily.

                Of course, you probably would like that so that a more traditional, national security, conservative Republican of your liking would be the nominee.

                1. That’s what’s so comical about John. He can’t be thinking we aren’t aware that his “concern” is utterly and cynically partisan.

                2. Bo,

                  Why have you decided to concern troll? This stuff really must hurt Clinton.

                  The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton knew that Flowers and Lewinsky were telling the truth. But she participated in a coordinated campaing to make them look like liars and nuts. Lewinksy was a 20 year old unpaid intern and Hillary planned to have the media paint her as a mentally unbalanced stalker. And had Monica not kept the dress, it would have worked.

                  Hillary was willing to let Monica Lewinsky be known forever more as an insane stalker, all just to protect her and Bills political future. If she is willing to destroy the life of some intern who gets in her way, what isn’t she willing to do.

                  You can claim that doesn’t reflect on her morality or fitness for office all you want. And you can call me a partisan for pointing out the truth. But everyone reading this who is not a paid troll like Tony can tell who is the mindless partisan here and it isn’t me.

                  1. ” And you can call me a partisan for pointing out the truth.”

                    Yes, John, your truth-telling and prognostication are not hazed by any partisanship. That is why Iraq was a resounding success, the public turned on Clinton during the impeachment, and we have a Romney presidency today!

                    1. Yes, John, your truth-telling and prognostication are not hazed by any partisanship. That is why Iraq was a resounding success, the public turned on Clinton during the impeachment, and we have a Romney presidency today!

                      So in other words you have no argument and are admitting defeat by throwing up various ad homenims and no sequiturs.

                      Thanks. Rarely do you get a real clear victory in one of these arguments.

                    2. I am pointing out your bad history of political judgment which I think suggest your partisanship clouds your view of the political landscape. Those are not ad homenims or ‘no’ sequiturs’ John.

                    3. I am pointing out your bad history of political judgment

                      My political judgement has nothing to do with the morality of her behavior or her fitness for office. You are only commenting on my judgement because you have nothing to say in defense of your position.

                      To anyone reading this, that is you admitting you lost.

            2. bringing them up at a point when the woman is not even running.

              Good one, Bo.

              If she was running any harder the IOC would have to test her for steroids.

              1. This is a perfect example of the gulf between those who follow politics a lot and those who do not. The latter are not thinking of Hillary Clinton as running for anything, they will see Paul bringing up her husband’s behavior from two decades ago, and which was already the subject of a big national debate which did not end well for the GOP mind you, as bizarre.

                Look, we are as close to a true libertarian moment as ever, in the sense that the most explicitly libertarian national political figure has a real shot at being President. Paul has gotten there not from playing politics as usual, but by transcending it. It is his principles that give him such a broad appeal. This truncates that.

                1. This is stupid, Bo. The only people reading or listening to Paul’s recent remarks about Clinton are also well aware that she’s de facto running for 2016. It’s not as if Joe Schmo is paying close attention to what some senator from Kentucky is saying, and yet would be shocked at the idea of Hillary Clinton 2016.

              2. Heard the same line in 2007. “Hillary is not going to run, what are you talking about?! She loves being senator of NY”

            3. Saw a tweet that said Mitt’s hair cutting in HS and his dog’s vacation transportation were relevant, but not Hillary’s past.

            4. Bo,
              how long ago did those Ron Paul newsletters get written, yet they seemed to matter last campaign. So did allegations against Herman Cain from women who subsequently disappeared. As did Bush’s National Guard record, whether McCain did or did not have an affair some time back.

              All these long ago things seem to matter greatly for the GOP nominees but none at all for the Dem. I call bullshit.

              1. Your examples prove my point: the National Guard attacks on Bush did not hurt him, rather they blew up on the people making the charge, and McCain was not harmed by the affair nonsense.

                1. when the war on women narrative comes up, and it will because it’s who Dems are, the response needs to be highlighted the actions of those who have actually harmed women. And their female enablers.

              2. “how long ago did those Ron Paul newsletters get written, yet they seemed to matter last campaign. So did allegations against Herman Cain from women who subsequently disappeared. ”

                Of course, both of those incidents were rather unknown to the public until these two became national figures.

                On the other hand, you had to be living in a cave under the ocean not to have heard about the Clinton shenanigans.

                Again, I thought that the Clinton crap was damning and should have cost both Clintons any sort of life outside of “Hermits in the backwoods of Arkansas”. But the US disagreed, and trying to bring it up again smacks of sour grapes.

            5. when the woman is not even running.

              How did you have the mental processing power to even type that statement?

          2. As John pointed out a few weeks ago, they were not just lying about it, they were actively trying to destroy the credibility of people like Lewinsky who were caught up in their idiotic drama.

            1. Yes but that isn’t news. Everyone even MODERATELY paying attention 15 years ago has had this exact same argument presented to them, and has made up their mind.

              As someone who wants Rand to win and despises the Clintons, I am sorry to say that the exact argument did not resonate with people then. Why is it going to resonate with them today?

              1. Doesn’t matter — its something much worse than news. It’s a constant. Damage from it isn’t just limited in a time frame when it forced the feminist movement in regrouping mode for several years. Like the left throwing out the ‘McCarthy Era’ for their benefit going on more than fifty years, this will still get some play for a long time afterwards.

    2. totally disagree. If a party is going to run on the notion of some war on women, then it should not have as its leading light a guy who 1) serially abused/mistreated women and 2) embarrassed the shit out of his wife for their entire marriage.

      The second point is, if you’re going to run Hillary under the womyn or feminist mantle, someone has to call bullshit. No self-proclaimed feminist alive would have tolerated Bill’s behavior.

      1. “then it should not have as its leading light a guy”

        But he will not be the leading light, his wife will be.

        “No self-proclaimed feminist alive would have tolerated Bill’s behavior.”

        I honestly do not see what feminism would have to do with how you deal with a cheating spouse.

        1. Bill’s party is the one pushing this war on women theme. Bill’s party is also the one with a list of elected guys whose actions have harmed women. Sorry, but this is a great way of tossing that in the left’s face.

          Feminism would damn sure not say that you should humiliated publicly time and again. Then again, this is a political partnership more than a marriage and Bill’s actions clearly show what he thinks of Hillary.

          1. “Bill’s party is the one pushing this war on women theme.”

            For all of how messed up that narrative is, it is not based on what some GOP woman candidates husband did two decades ago.

            “Feminism would damn sure not say that you should humiliated publicly time and again.”

            I just do not see how advocating social and political equality for women necessitates a position on what a woman should do when she catches her husband cheating on her.

            The very fact that most of the people here who ridicule (usually rightly) feminism think this is going to be some great point of feminism suggests its weakness in my opinion.

            1. I just do not see how advocating social and political equality for women necessitates a position on what a woman should do when she catches her husband cheating on her.

              I don’t see how in necessitates a position on any number of things that feminists nonetheless claim it must.

            2. Bo,
              you are either ignoring the point or missing it. Yes, it matters. When your party is of Clinton, the Kennedys, Edwards, the ex-San Diego mayor, et al, and you are accusing the other side of warring against women, it’s bullshit and someone needs to point to real examples of why it’s bullshit. Rand’s doing that.

              The left turns a blind eye to anything Clinton did, or the Kennedys or Edwards or most others because they support abortion rights. They get more outraged over some goober’s comment about rape-rape than about one of theirs actually engaging in it. Or in leaving a young woman to die. Or using his wife’s cancer to troll for votes while banging a campaign staffer.

              1. People have been pointing out the Kennedys, Clinton’s, and other ‘randy Dems’ behavior towards women for decades and it has not stopped them from doing well with women.

                I am not arguing Paul is wrong in the substance of what he saying, I am making a political argument.

                1. and I think Paul is making the counter political argument to the war on women theme.

                  1. The counter political argument is to point to groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor.

      2. 2) embarrassed the shit out of his wife for their entire marriage.

        I don’t think she was embarrassed.

    3. Why?

      The fact is Clinton was a harasser of women in the workplace, and quite possibly even committed forcible rape. And Hillary acted to enable it or at least turned a blind eye to it.

      Coupled with the bullshit War on Women meme the crybullies in the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party have been peddling, this is a timely issue that needs to be pushed.

      Backing off would be precisely the same mistake Brutus made in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar when he agreed to let Antony give the funeral oration for Shakespeare.

      The only hope guys like Paul have is to mission kill the attempts by their opponents to establish hostile big-lie narratives.

      1. “For Bill is an honorable man.”

    4. I disagree. This is winner-take-all politics. You get no points for being nice and the more merciless and savvy politician tends to win. Look at how the Dems hammered Mitt as a heartless rich guy. Bush II fostered rumors about McCain’s illegitimate kid. These folks won their races and got to put their policies into place. Paul didnt just pick Bill because he seemed an easy target he did it for a reason:

      To neutralize the “war on women” emphasis that would come from the left and more specifically, the likely Dem nominee in the 2016 race.

      His point about Bill is true. Hillary loses if she weighs in on any level or from any angle. The most likely response is that they will try to attack in another way. In that case, you have helped eliminate an arrow from their quiver. On the political battlefield, that is a victory in an of itself.

      1. “Hillary loses if she weighs in on any level or from any angle. ”

        Not at all. She will just dismiss Paul as someone who is stuck in the (to the voters) distant past and who is sexistly blaming her husbands sins on her.

        Do not think about how you would receive him doing this, think about how independent voters would.

        1. “She will just dismiss Paul as someone who is stuck in the (to the voters) distant past and who is sexistly blaming her husbands sins on her.”

          And embarrass herself horribly in the process. Not to mention that it will discredit any “war on women” from Bill himself. I have no doubt independent/undecideds will be turned off by such behavior.

          1. I am betting that for many of those making this argument who were around then, they supported the impeachment and thought it would go over great.

        2. Bo

          Not at all. She will just dismiss Paul as someone who is stuck in the (to the voters) distant past…

          It’s only the the distant past to someone like you who was probably still shitting his diapers when Hillary went on 60 Minutes to lie about Gennifer Flowers, and who still didn’t have pubes when she went on the Today Show to lie about “The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy”.

      2. Mitt Romney may have made a bad President. We will never know. But there is no doubt that he is a genuinely good person and anything but a heartless rich guy. The Democrats play dirty and think nothing of lying and slandering their opponents.

        Republicans need to be willing to do the same or be prepared to lose.

        1. “But there is no doubt that he is a genuinely good person and anything but a heartless rich guy.”

          Get a room, Kathyrn Jean-Lopez!

          1. then demonstrate where he is a heartless son of a bitch, Bo, because all you’re doing now is letting personal dislike of him do your typing.

          2. Sorry the truth hurts Bo. Get in the butt hurt line with Tony. You show me anything about Romney that indicates he is anything but a nice guy. He just is. He certainly isn’t a misogynist or intended to put blacks back in chains as Biden accused him of.

            Sorry it bugs you to think that people who disagree with you might not be evil. It must be a shitty way to go through life. But that is your choice to be that way not mine.

            1. I think Romney easily came off as an arrogant, insulated person, almost the caricature of inherited wealth.

              “Sorry it bugs you to think that people who disagree with you might not be evil. ”

              This coming from you is amazing!

              1. And who chose to focus on his “wealth” and his macro-economic policies in an intellectually dishonest way and use that to characterize him personally as “heartless”? All the while, willfully ignoring and downplaying any charitable or compassionate acts or qualities?

                His opponent, their supporters and any liberal/mainstream media. So, you prove our point.

                In politics, the most repeated narrative is the reality.

              2. I think Romney easily came off as an arrogant, insulated person, almost the caricature of inherited wealth.

                So in other words “Bo doesn’t like him so therefore he must be a morally unfit person”.

                Thanks for making the exact point I said you did.

                1. That is how you think John, relentlessly demonizing and cursing any that disagree with you.

                  I do not think Romney is a ‘morally unfit person’ but neither do I find him to be the center of moral goodness you do.

                  I was troubled by the dog story and the haircutting story, but more by the dismissive ‘47%’ comment. In the debates, both the GOP ones and the first one with Obama, he seemed to be fully comfortable with a ‘bullying’ style of jumping in whenever he wanted to regardless of the rules and I associate that with being an arrogant jerk.

                  So, now that I have given you concrete examples, you may dither about them.

                  1. I do not think Romney is a ‘morally unfit person’ but neither do I find him to be the center of moral goodness you do.

                    Sure you don’t. That is why you called me out for saying Romney was a moral person unfairly slandered during the campaign.

                    I guess you agree with me and have no point. Thanks.

          3. What’s the problem with recognizing that a politician comes across as a likeable guy outside of the causes he espouses? Mitt Romney, and say, Jerry Brown both seem to have admirable qualities outside of their profession. Hell, Willie Brown is probably a lot of fun even though he advanced one of the stupidest ideas I have seen — equal outcome based graduation rates.

            1. I bet Willie Brown is a hoot. And Jerry Brown most certainly is a decent human being on a personal level even if his political positions border on the barbaric.

            2. Killaz, why would you be under the impression that because I do not find Romney to be a great guy I think that of those I disagree with in general?

              I actually think a lot of most of the politicians I disagree with. For example, Bush was a very admirable fellow in many ways, the way he gave up alcohol and dedicated himself to his family and church shows real character in my opinion. I think for all my disagreement with Cheney, the way he handled things with his daughter struck me as doing the right thing even when hard. Even Obama I have to commend on what seems to be an honest commitment to his children and wife.

              1. Sorry Bo, you are correct. I wanted to remind people Willie Brown is kind of awesome, and it came at your expense.

                1. Also, Jerry Brown, it is my one opinion that hasn’t changed since the 1970s. Sure, I get to bask in his light on the East Coast, but they seem to be more than willing to take it in California.

                  1. To rant some more [while twirling a potato tied to the end of a string], I loved in the ’92 debates how Brown was a complete asshole to Clinton. My impression of Clinton at that time before he came on top of the nomination, he was a pudgy marshmallow who would never make it on the national scene. Man was I ever so wrong, unfortunately.

        2. there is no doubt that he is a genuinely good person

          BULLSHIT.

          Depraved indifference to human suffering doesn’t make him a good person.

          -jcr

          1. did the Mormon gremlins kill your link?

      3. also, i wanted to clarify that I don’t condone the examples of BushII and Obama playing scorched-earth politics, just that you should never refuse to attack if what you are attacking with is true, relevant and effective. This issue is relevant for reasons some people above have already mentioned. It certainly is true. And I believe it will be effective.

        As John mentioned, if Bill were a truly private citizen, it would be neither relevant or effective and should be avoided. Bill will be her number one campaign promoter and will leverage his position as former president to help her campaign. His record and behavior (and hers) during his presidency is more than just relevant, it is essential to who the candidate is.

      4. Look at how the Dems hammered Mitt as a heartless rich guy.

        To be fair, it didn’t help that Mitt was actually a heartless rich guy.

        1. Except that he wasn’t. Name a single thing Romney ever did that would fit t hat description?

  4. 5. It’s really fun.

      1. Please.

  5. http://m.washingtonpost.com/op…..story.html

    OT: But I hope we get a solid critique of EJ Dionne’s attack on Austrian economics.

    1. Why do we want to be Austrians? They live in a nice country with stunning mountains and all that, but aren’t we perfectly happy to be Americans?

      Well, I’m sold.

      1. It’s a fair point. We’ve also been relying on German and Scandinavian physics for a good while, aren’t we happy to be Americans?

        1. And that General RElativity used to make GPS possible, allowing people to discover and clog my shortcuts! Too long have we struggled under the yoke of Germano-Jewish physics!

          1. I hear our genetics are all Czech (or Austrian Empire). Bah.

            1. Don’t forget Japanese.

        2. I’m sure with a little good ol’ American ingenuity, along with a large infusion of taxpayer money, we can find a way around those pesky laws of thermodynamics!

      2. “Why do we want to be Austrians? They live in a nice country with stunning mountains and all that, but aren’t we perfectly happy to be Americans?”

        Pretty sure this is from a guy who thinks the French are just froggy, right?
        Uh, ducky…

    2. How come its the Austrians and not the people who call themselves Keynesians, but only like the “government borrows and spends more” part of that theory?

    3. You know who was an Austrian, don’t you?

      1. Franz Josef the First?

      2. Arnold Schwarzenegger?

      3. Konrad Lorenz?

      4. Falco?

      5. Self hating international bankers.

      6. Gaston Glock?

    4. But to the contrary, postwar initiatives along Keynesian lines are precisely what prevented both the resurgence of fascism and the collapse of Western Europe into communist hands.

      Except for one thing–Truman and Eisenhower actually made efforts to cut spending and pay down the debt, not ramp them up to the obscene levels we have now. Dionne attributing Keynesianism to the prevention of communism from asserting itself in Europe beyond the Warsaw countries is, as per usual with him, a specious claim.

      Half all federal spending in those years was on the military, not social welfare programs, and much lower budgets were made on an inflation-adjusted basis, both in total and per capita levels.

      Dionne’s drek reminds of the remark Keynes made about him being the only non-Keynesian in the room after meeting with a group of American economists.

      Idiots like Dionne have a lot of trouble accepting that the government’s never taken in more than 20% of revenue to GDP, and has only taken in more than 19% eleven times since 1948, regardless of where the tax rates were set. If a government can’t peg its spending to its historic revenue to GDP ratio, it’s going to be fucked in the long run, no matter where you set taxes.

      1. It’s the go-to argument for progs. They don’t typically want to defend bloated welfare state spending so they talk about highways and dams (as long as you don’t mention greens objections to them) and space without seeing how small those expenditures are compared to welfare.

        We could spend many times over on highways every year and still have small government, but they defend every penny of our 20-25% GDP budget no matter what it is.

    5. Our policies are not effective because — Ludwig Von Mises! The greatest supervillian the world has ever known.

      1. He loved fascism, donchukno?

        1. Milton Friedman spoke to Pinochet for FIFTEEN MINUTES! Those savage right wingers are going to get us all killed with their unregulated, unchecked, unscientific markets.

        2. And, Mises, he thought Nazism was such a good idea, he packed his bags and went country to country to proselytize its market worshiping evil.

          Joke aside, we are bound to see the proglodytes make that claim some day, aren’t we?

          1. They already come close to it. To be fair, I’d also be accused of making “astonishingly positive remarks about fascism” if I had to compare the eight-figure number of people murdered by fascism to the nine-figure number of people murdered by communism.

            astonishingly positive remarks about fascism in the 1920s…Frankly, these comments are an utter embarrassment and disgrace to Mises.

            http://socialdemocracy21stcent…..sment.html

            That’s from the site of the “Lord Keynes” that Krugman quoted a couple of weeks ago; the poster pops up on Bob Murphy’s site every now and then to whine and engage in the usual curve-fitting, jargon-heavy neo-Keynesian complaints.

            1. I know that guy. He did that to me just a few weeks ago, threw in a ‘positive demand curve’ into a discussion where that had no meaning. I find their maths to be — underwhelming.

    6. Hayek and Mises perceived little difference between democratic governments that used their power to plan against recessions and dictatorships that did the same thing.

      They are the ones that saw little difference between the systems? Well, correct, but this is from Keynes who saw one striking difference between totalitarian dictatorships and authoritarian democracies.

      The theory of aggregate production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state [eines totalen Staates] than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire. This is one of the reasons that justifies the fact that I call my theory a general theory. Since it is based on fewer hypotheses than the orthodox theory, it can accommodate itself all the easier to a wider field of varying conditions.

      So, to reiterate the above argument, Dione, you suck.

    7. The problem is Dionne doesn’t criticize Austrian economics. He doesn’t even mention anything having to do with economics. He plucks Hayek and von Mises names out of a hat, then proceeds to extol the “victories” of Keynesianism (the New Deal, World War II, the Marshall Plan). He then credits Keynesianism with saving Europe from Communism. Dionne finishes by blaming “Austrians” for opposing “normal, bipartisan” things like minimum wage hikes and more unemployment checks and laments the awful gridlock in Washington.

      He blithely ignores that Hayek was in favor of minimum income for those who were incapable of working, but why let little things like the truth get in the way of “The Narrative”?

      1. To someone like Dionne, bipartisan means the same thing as common sense. The idea that mainstream parties operating within the Overton window could both be terribly harmful to the well-being of the people is an idea that soars like an eagle above his pointy little head.

    8. From the article:

      Yet today’s conservatives are in thrall to Austrian thinking, and this explains a lot of what is going on in Washington.

      Really? I’d fall out of my chair if John Boehner or Mitch McConnell could actually explain Austrian theory.

  6. One of the posters over there imagines the media reaction to a Republican President paying out $850,000 in a sexual harassment settlement.

    “”The news September 11 2001, our to story, remember, republican president Bill Clinton, woman harasser had to pay a $850k settlement last year for harassment. Also something happened with some planes.”

    Heh.

    1. I’m struggling with putting together “Dear Christ” and “get down off your fucking cross before you cause traffic problems” without it sounding odd.

      Republicans are always forgiven, quickly, for their many instances of sexual infidelity (unless it’s the gay kind). Clinton was impeached over it. What universe are you in?

      1. Bill Clinton was accused of rape on national TV and paid $850,000 in settlement to a woman who alleged that he demanded sexual favors in return for advancement in her job. He also had a sexual affair with a unpaid intern half his age getting such heart warming acts like having her toss his salad. (yes that is true, look it up on the Smoking Gun if you don’t believe me)

        Yet, you and your ilk still defend him and still claim with a straight face that not only is there such a thing as “coercive sex” by men in power but that it is a major problem.

        Yeah Tony, Bill Clinton is a big fat chicken eating reminder of what fakes you people are. You don’t give a fuck about women, children or anything else beyond power. I am sure that truth is pretty painful. But suck it up.

        1. At least he didn’t start a multitrillion-dollar multithousand-casualty war based on lies.

          1. Okay Tony, Bush started a war but you admit to being a complete hypocrite who will defend anything as long it puts your team in power.

            Yeah, that sounds about right.

            1. Although I’m not defending Clinton’s behavior 20 years ago, I will, if asked, defend two adults’ choice to have consensual sexual relations, even if they aren’t married or are married to other people. Because it’s none of my damn business.

              1. tony,
                when your meme, or part of it, is accusing the other side of a war against women, it would be nice if you had not committed some sort of offense against women. Kinda hurts your credibility.

              2. Although I’m not defending Clinton’s behavior 20 years ago, I will, if asked, defend two adults’ choice to have consensual sexual relations, even if they aren’t married or are married to other people. Because it’s none of my damn business.

                The issue here is not that Bill Clinton had affairs.

                The issue here is that Bill Clinton engaged in workplace sexual harassment, and admitted as much by settling the Paula Jones lawsuit.

                The issue here is that Bill Clinton engaged in workplace sexual harassment by having an affair with Monica, who was in a dramatically compromised “power relationship” with him.

                Now, I think sexual harassment law and “power relationship” theory is fucking bunk. But the left does not. Since they endorse these theories, I am entitled to demand that they live up to them 100%. No exceptions. That means I get to demand that they drum Bill out of their party and ostracize him as nonkulturny. When they fail to do that, I am morally entitled to excoriate them for it.

                1. “admitted as much by settling the Paula Jones lawsuit.”

                  Even a 2L like me can tell you that does not follow.

                  1. Even a 2L like me can tell you that does not follow.

                    Yes it does. When you settle a case for a large amount of money, you are doing it for a reason. It is perfectly acceptable for the outside world to assume that reason is your culpability.

                    1. I have said this before, but I really shudder for your clients.

                      Do not take my word for it, folks, go ask any local lawyer if a settlement=admission of guilt.

                    2. Do not take my word for it, folks, go ask any local lawyer if a settlement=admission of guilt.

                      The standard here is the threshold that would be applied by the left.

                      If I was sued for workplace discrimination against blacks, and settled for a lot of money, and then was running for Congress, would the Democrats and their media mouthpieces treat my settlement as an admission of wrongdoing, or would they not?

                      I am perfectly happy to be a modified Kantian on this. If my opponents apply a particular moral theory, it entitles me to universalize that theory and apply it to them, in every available instance of its application.

                      An eye for an eye until the whole world is blind, motherfuckers. Let’s do this thing.

                2. What Fluffy said.

                3. As a member of the left, prior to any of that I believe that once you’ve paid your debt to society, you deserve to get on with your life.

                  But why am I even bothering? Anyone who isn’t wearing partisan blinders knows that the easiest way to get Hillary elected is to talk about Bill Clinton’s scandals 20 years ago! I mean fuck!

                  1. right, tony. Reason is known for all the partisan blinder ads that appear here.

                  2. As a member of the left, prior to any of that I believe that once you’ve paid your debt to society, you deserve to get on with your life.

                    But Bill is not even the target of the criticism here.

                    I love Bill. I wish him nothing but well. I hope he’s fucking half of Westchester county.

                    Bill is not the issue. The issue is Democrats who trot him out for events and allow him to campaign for him.

                    If I invited Mark Fuhrman to campaign for me, do you think anyone would say, “Oh poor Mark Fuhrman, just let the guy live his life”? Nope.

                    Because that only applies to Democrats.

                    1. All you’re doing is whining.

                    2. All you’re doing is whining.

                      He is pointing out your hypocrisy. By your own standards Bill Clinton hates women and by extension anyone who appears with him does too.

                      Why do you hate women so much Tony?

                    3. Those aren’t remotely my standards. I don’t care what someone does with his penis, as long as it’s legal. At all. I’m not a moral busybody/creepy pervert like everyone on your team. I care about what policies a politician advocates. Republicans advocate Uncle Sam’s vaginal probes, while Democrats advocate letting women make their own medical decisions. And that’s all the “war on women” is really about. If you can’t figure that out, then good for me.

                    4. Democrats advocate letting women make their own medical decisions

                      Like deciding how much of their own money to spend on contraception?

                    5. Yes, keep talking like that. Eventually you’ll win the argument, surely.

                    6. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself ? that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.

                    7. The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them … To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies ? all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

                    8. Don’t be such a drama queen. By winning the argument I mean, of course, that you start getting more women to vote for you. Right? Or are women, like black people, more easily duped about their best interests than average?

          2. At least he didn’t start a multitrillion-dollar multithousand-casualty war based on lies.

            No, he just got involved on the back end of one.

          3. as I recall, Clinton was one of George’s most vocal supporters re: Iraq, maybe because he and Bush had the same CIA Chief, maybe because most of Bill’s tenure was spent hunting those nasty weapons. And his wife voted for it.

            1. So what portion of the complicity do you feel they share?

              1. more than you and your team are willing to admit.

          4. BOOOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHHHH!!!!!!!1111!!!!!

      2. “Clinton was impeached over it.”

        No, dipshit, he wasn’t.
        He was impeached for lying to Congress. You knew that, but you’d never let a chance for dishonesty pass, would you?

        1. You can wish as hard as you want, but history is going to treat that incident as the sexually hysterical partisan witch hunt it was. It started doing so before the incident was even over.

          1. So Tony, you are down with college professors, bosses, CEOS and other powerful men having affairs with their interns? You think that no imbalance of power could possibly make sex coercive?

            Is that the position of the DNC now? That is going to come as a hell of a shock to a lot of feminists. Have you told them this?

            1. Who is defending Bill Clinton’s behavior? My position is that it was thoroughly litigated–to the point of a witch hunt–and nobody gives a shit anymore, and what does it have to do with Hillary Clinton’s qualifications?

              1. Tony|2.10.14 @ 3:37PM|#
                “My position is lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.”

                Yes, we know.

              2. The fact that she defended him and lied for him for years to the point of willingly slandering other women like Gennifer Flowers and Lewinsky that she knew was telling the truth. To people like us who have morality, that reflects on her character and fitness to office. I am sure that is puzzling to a craven fanatic like you.

                And yes Tony we know, even when your team is guilty of something, the other team is worse and the real story is about how the other team is worse not your own teams failures.

                We get that. You don’t have to tell us. That is your move.

                1. To be fair, your team is much, much, much worse.

                  If the option is the wife of a philanderer and a moron who believes in fairy tale economics whose policies will cause an immediate depression, oh gee tough one.

                  Moral my ass. Partisan is all you are.

                  1. so tony,
                    -which Repub left a woman to die to save his political ass?
                    -which Repub trolled for votes using his wife’s cancer while screwing a campaign staffer?
                    -which Repub, as mayor, was noted as a serial harasser who had to be removed from office practically at gunpoint?

                    And that’s just the short list. But please, fill us in.

                    1. Here’s a list of sex scandals of politicians at the federal level. I’ll let you count the Rs and Ds.

                      I don’t ask to get sucked into a conversation about how great Republicans are at this Libertarian site, it just happens.

                    2. I don’t ask to get sucked into a conversation about how great Republicans are at this Libertarian site, it just happens.

                      enter the straw man. This has nothing to do with Repubs, just what one of them said about a Dem who abused the power of two offices to mistreat women. What is ironic is that Dems have a colorful history of particularly egregious offenses in that regard.

              3. what does it have to do with Hillary Clinton’s qualifications?

                Hillary doesn’t have any qualifications, rent-boy. She’s been riding her husband’s coattails for her entire so-called “career”.

                -jcr

              4. “Who is defending Bill Clinton’s behavior? ”

                John is incapable of distinguishing between that and finding that some others will not take to the pointing out of its wrongness two decades later as well as he does.

                1. John is incapable of distinguishing between that and finding that some others will not take to the pointing out of its wrongness two decades later as well as he does.

                  Concern troll is concerned. Democrats who trot out Bill Clinton at fund raisers are no different as fluffy points out than someone who trots out Mark Furhman at a fund raiser. Both are vulnerable to guilt by association and to the charge of not living by their own standards.

                  And certainly, Hillary should be held accountable for her appalling behavior in defending her husband. No one made Hillary do the things she did. And them being 20 years ago doesn’t excuse them and you know it.

                  1. Bill Clinton is one of the most respected people on planet earth, same as his wife. You’re just going to have to deal with it.

                    1. Bill Clinton is one of the most respected people on planet earth,

                      So you think it is okay that a sexual predator by the standards of your own party is held in such esteem?

                    2. I don’t hold Monica Lewinsky in terribly high esteem. I mean, nothing against her either, really.

                    3. Bill Clinton is one of the most respected people on planet earth

                      Yes, it’s tragic just how many idiots walk the earth. At least I’m not one of them.

                      -jcr

          2. Tony|2.10.14 @ 3:32PM|#
            “You can wish as hard as you want, but history is going to treat that incident as the sexually hysterical partisan witch hunt it was”

            So you’re more than happy to lie about it, since it suits your miserable agenda?
            Why is that not surprising?

          3. Here’s the actual articles of impeachment.

            Just because the media reported it as “uptight Rethuglikkkans get their panties in a bunch over president getting a hummer or two” doesn’t make it true, no matter how many times they continue to repeat it. But you know what they say, repeat a lie often enough…

            1. My gosh, you are fighting a war lost two decades ago.

              1. I know that battle’s already lost, I was merely pointing out that the claim that Clinton was impeached over his sexual indescretions is a lie. There’s still a few people out there who care about the truth. Not many, but a few.

              2. My gosh, you’re missing the point! Almost wantonly!

            2. I’m aware of that nuance, it having been screeched at me by pissy pants Republicans for decades. It’s a matter of perception now. And, as Bo said, you lost.

      3. Bill’s in the party that accuses its opponents of a war on women. Bill is in the party whose elected members have repeatedly mistreated if not abused women. Maybe they should find a new issue.

        1. You really wanna have a tally of sexual deviancy by party?

          1. Sure, why not. Sounds entertaining.

            1. It would be a fun exercise. Though with Filner and Clinton combining for about 38 separate individuals harassed or conquered, how will the Republicans compete?

              1. Don’t forget about the Weiner!

          2. Tony,

            We wouldn’t have to get out of the Kennedy family before the amount of Dem deviancy exceeded the total amount of deviancy in many small cities.

            1. At least they fucked adults.

              1. True. The Dems who were screwing teenage pages back in the 1980s didn’t even do that. There is a great tradition of boy man love in the Dem party.

              2. Mary Jo got fucked, all right.

                -jcr

          3. I’ll drink to that.

          4. Let me guess, rent-boy: more of your tricks are Republicans than Democrats?

            -jcr

  7. Someone on the Republican side needs to be able to counter the “war on women” propaganda of the Democrats…

    My guess is it’s this. In every context I’ve read, this is it.

    1. I don’t seem to recall the Democrats having much to say about the “war on women” during the 2000 election cycle. There was a reason for that. They pissed away any pretense of giving a shit about these issues when they defended Clinton. They only were able to bring in 2012 when enough time had passed to put the whole thing down the memory hole. If they want to run Hillary in 2016, the Republicans shouldn’t deprive the country of a little 90s remembering.

  8. It’s really stupid. Attacking a woman nominee for the (long-ago) behavior of her husband is not, it should go without saying, a winning formula for appealing to women voters.

    Yeah Rand Paul’s a real hippie dippy when it comes to workplace equality, I’m sure.

    1. Do you want to be Austrian with me? We can go skiing!

    2. “Attacking a woman nominee for the (long-ago) behavior of her husband is not, it should go without saying, a winning formula for appealing to women voters.”

      I have to agree here, I think this is a better read than John’s take on it above.

      “Rand Paul’s a real hippie dippy when it comes to workplace equality, I’m sure.”

      Why assume otherwise? He has, for example, been rather prominent in combating perceived sexual assaults in the military.

      1. He’s attacking Bill’s ability to fundraise, which is exactly what Bill is doing. I don’t see how that’s different from people talking about Sheldon Adelson.

      2. Have to give him credit for evolving there. Not long ago his ideas concerning workplace rights predated 1964.

        1. Tony, one can want and work towards fair and equal workplaces without supporting the government using its coercive power in the name of that goal.

          1. Tony has repeatedly said that no one ever does anything voluntarily, and thus must be coerced.

            For example he has said that the only reason why parents take care of their children is because of laws against neglect. That’s the only reason. No parent has ever voluntarily taken care of their children. They only did it because of the coercive power of government.

          2. Only if you don’t care about actually achieving the goal.

            1. tony,
              remember that line when Repubs use coercion to achieve some goal they care about, say banning abortion or some such. A few them genuinely care about doing that.

            2. Because no goal has ever been reached without government coercion, and all goals that used that means have been! Sure Tony.

              1. Come on, that’s sarc level strawman. What’s Rand Paul’s strategy again? Walk up to each workplace in the country and give a persuasive talk on equality?

                1. Come on, that’s sarc level strawman. What’s Rand Paul’s strategy again? Walk up to each workplace in the country and give a persuasive talk on equality?

                  Why were workplaces in the north integrated prior to 1964?

                  Because in the north, there were no laws forcing segregation, and no paramilitary organization(s) trying to force involuntary private segregation were suffered to exist.

                  If you had wanted to hang one Klansman every ten miles on Route 50, it would have gone a long way towards destroying Jim Crow. Without destroying property rights and freedom of association nationwide.

                  1. This!

                  2. Because in the north, there were no laws forcing segregation, and no paramilitary organization(s) trying to force involuntary private segregation were suffered to exist.

                    *BOOM* (Tony’s head explodes.)

                  3. Property rights and freedom of association were destroyed nationwide? Did I miss that?

                    The flip side of your point is that if the South weren’t so fucking racist to the point of enforcing apartheid conditions, we wouldn’t have needed the law. You’re right.

                2. Come on, that’s sarc level strawman.

                  You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

        2. The military is not a private business.

    3. give it a rest, tony. Hillary has championed herself as some feminist icon. What feminist lets her husband embarrass her on a national stage for decades? What feminist goes along with hubby treating a girl younger than her daughter as a humidor? Oh, that’s right; one that sees no further than abortion rights, that’s who.

      1. A feminist who believes it’s none of your fucking business? Libertarians like to give lip service to that concept too, on occasion.

        1. It none of anyone’s business as long as they aren’t’ abusing their power in order to victimize others.

        2. when your hubby is a governor and then the president, it becomes my business because that is the nature of those jobs. She can think it’s none of my business all she wants, and a hundred million women are looking at her like she’s a moron willing to look like a fool in service to political ambition.

          At that point, the term means even less than its cheerleaders want to believe. If you’re running for office, I’m just going to have to insist that you live up the ideals you keep espousing.

          1. You’re a naive prig then, as other-than-purely-Christian-approved sexual behavior has been going on among ruling elites (among others) since–let me check my calendar–oh, forever.

            I guess I’m just more libertarian minded on this issue than you. I don’t think anyone’s legal and consensual sexual behavior is any of my business, nor am I particularly interested. And unlike you transparently partisan boobs, I believe the same goes for Republicans. (Though I do draw the line when they fuck kids.)

            1. and when Dems fuck kids, where are you then? Clinton’s behavior is immaterial until the people who defend accuse opponents of waging a war on women. Then it’s fair game. So is Hillary’s complicity in it.

              You would think in 20 years, the left would have moved beyond the “it was just sex” argument.

              1. The “war on women” thing doesn’t really have anything to do with extramarital affairs. Democrats aren’t actually the ones who are big fat hypocrites about that (*cough* Newt Gingrich). It has to do with Republican policy platform items of government sticking its cold fingers up women’s reproductive organs. If you can’t figure out how to tell the difference then you’re losing a war you don’t even realize you’re fighting.

                1. Democrats aren’t actually the ones who are big fat hypocrites about that

                  Anyone who cheats on their spouse is an automatic hypocrite.

                  1. Anyone who commits to one sexual partner until death is just sad.

            2. HUR DUR I CAN”T DEFEND MY POINT DEFLECTION TIME /Toney

            3. “I don’t think anyone’s legal and consensual sexual behavior is any of my business, nor am I particularly interested.”

              So you are against the sexual harassment policies the Democrats in general and the Clintons in particular have supported?

  9. The Tuff Gai image is hilarious. I don’t get why Clinton being a two-faced douchebag is relevant now, other than the fact that he just won’t shut up and drift into the sunset, like a good tuff gai.

  10. How did the topic arise? Did Rand just walk into an interview and start ranting about Bill Clinton and Monica?

    Or was there some attempt at a DemOp “gotcha” setup, and Rand was responding to that?

    1. “Oh, hey, its the 20th anniversary of this, what do you think Sen. Paul?”

    2. He refused to spend real money on a message guy.

      1. Tony|2.10.14 @ 3:23PM|#
        “He refused to spend real money on a message guy.”

        Yeah, unlike your faves, he just doesn’t have enough professional liars around.

      2. Anti-dem messages don’t stick much in the MSM. We’d be seeing more digging and investigating of Hillary’s record as SOS and the Clinton Foundation.

        Just today, I read National Review’s short take on Andrea Mitchell saying big donors used to hand out at Dept of State parties when she was there and WashTimes has a big article on her best friends papers at the Univ. of Ark documenting her revenge tactics.

        Haven’t seen anything about that in the Post, NYT (they did investigate the foundation, though) or Politico.

        1. Using the DOS as a fund raising tool. Nothing corrupt about that.

  11. Reason 9: his appalling lack of taste and low standards.

    I mean, JFK bagged the stunning Jackie Bouvier and Marilyn Monroe; Billy settled for Hillary and Monica Lewinsky. Yeeesh. You’d think that he could do a little better.

    1. Bill likes chubby and ugly chicks, cause they need love too. See, he is not some callous and evil bastage because he knows the nasty ones need some luvin too!

      1. No. Clinton likes better looking women when he can get them. He went for Liz Hurley and Elizabeth Ward Gracen and God knows who else.

        He only went for Monica because Hillary and the Secret Service had conspired to keep anything with pulse and a vagina as far away from him as possible. They figured even Bubba wouldn’t be such a scum bag that he would go for 20 year old overweight intern. Well, even they didn’t quite understand what a lowlife Bubba really is.

    2. Umm, he fishes with a wide net, which also allegedly caught Elizabeth Hurley.

  12. I don’t care what anyone says about Bill Clinton. It does certainly seem like he has a history of taking sexual advantage of women. But portraying Monica Lewinsky as his victim seems a bit much. She knew what she was doing and got exactly what she wanted.

    1. maybe but she was younger than Chelsea and an intern in the White House. Who should be held to the higher standard here?

      Tell you what – let’s say your daughter was used as a humidor by some guy your age or older. Is there a part of you that wants to visit, right along with the part asking her what the hell she’s thinking?

      1. As someone without a daughter, I can look at this rationally and see that they were both adults and her age relative to his daughter’s is irrelevant.

        I’m not saying that Clinton isn’t a scumbag. Just that Monica isn’t the best example. It was scummy because he was cheating on his wife, but beyond that, I don’t see anything terrible there. Unless there is some evidence that I don’t know about that she was an unwilling humidor, I don’t care what kind of weird shit other people get up to.

        1. Aside from Clinton’s questionable judgment (and not questionable lack of morals) in doing what he did, it’s not terribly consistent to give him a free pass for using “the power of his position” to score an intern, knowing that if he’d been with the other party or, say, a CEO, he’d have caught hell from the same people giving him a free pass.

          It’s hypocrisy of a very high order, and I think that’s what Rand is focusing on.

        2. it becomes relevant when you remember he was POTUS, not the manager of the movie theater and she worked the late shift. Monica, and it’s thanks to that dress, avoided the fate that other Clinton women endured – having the Dem machine sicced on them to trash their reputations.

          1. It may well be good political strategy to make something of it. And I can see why some people might think more of it than I do. But I still don’t care and don’t think its a good case to focus on if you want to make the case that Bill is some kind of predator.

  13. “Why Do People We Continually Accuse of Sexism Dare to Accuse Us of Hypocrisy? = Questions Raised About His Discomfort Around Blacks as Well”

  14. No one cared then. Why would anyone care now? Feminista groups gave him a free pass. The rest of the left stuck their fingers in their ears and went “lalalalala” everytime it was mentioned. The royality banging the help is only to be expected. The only people whe care are the people that aren’t going to vote for HRC anyways. Stick to the issues. That’s their real weakness.

    1. They may not have cared but it took the “war on women” bullshit off the table for a few years. The Democrats didn’t talk that much about it in 2000 did they?

      And people seem to have cared a bit more than they let on. Al Gore managed to lose the Presidential election despite being effectively the incumbent running with a very good economy and during a time of peace. A lot of people who had voted for Clinton in 96 voted against Gore in 2000 for some reason.

      1. Three reasons. Guns. Guns. Guns.

        1. It was more than that. That was some of it. But it wasn’t all of it. Dole got killed. That is a ton of votes to switch sides.

          1. People were tired of Clinton and the drama and Gore acted like a drama queen during the debates. Not likable like Clinton, which overcame much of his negatives.

            Also, Gore really won!!!

            /Dems forever

  15. reason number xx: He’s working up to Clinton’s rape of Juanita Broaddrick.

    (and the power-worshiping lewinksy press’s inability to think about the possibility that clinton is a rapist and severe sociopath)

    1. All of that’s been whitwashed by the media already. These women were trollops don’t you know.

  16. 5. He was asked a “War on Wymenz” trap question and turned it around to point out the hypocrisy of the Dems claiming to be the party for wymenz while simultaneously looking the other way when one of their leading figures engages in the kind of behavior they’re allegedly against.

  17. I hope Rand Paul continues on the offensive. The reason why McCain and Romney lost was because first off, they were crappy candidates. But also, they allowed the Democrats to create the narritive and thus always having to be on the defensive. Fuck that. The Dems aren’t going to have mercy on Paul or any other GOP nominee. Mitt Romney by all means is a nice guy but the DNC touted him as this monster who would force women back into the kitchen and force the gays to perform illegal abortions underground.

    1. This. Attack or die. It’s better to do something a little wrong than do nothing. Ignore every syllable said by BCE.

    2. Mitt Romney by all means is a nice guy

      If I were to say Mitt was a heartless bastard, some here would demand that I prove it. Well, here you are claiming he’s a nice guy, by all means. Ok, prove it.

    3. They should attack but they should also use their frickin’ heads. And the Repubs do this every damn time – they see the red cape and just charge into the sword.

      At best, Paul attacking Bill’s improprieties comes off as cynical, token and, quite frankly, desperate. It wasn’t all that long ago that those comments about “legitimate rape” (and the queasy, luke-warm party response) came out. Nor has the disgraceful way they framed the contraception mandate coverage gone away.

      The perceptions of conservative views on women is going to take a long, long time to change.

  18. As stupid as media attacks on Paul might be, I think he did take a decent point and kind of fuck it up completely.

    He could have just stuck to the point that republicans don’t treat women like political slaves whose only concern is free contraception, and have an equally strong number of female representatives in congress, or blah blah blah, but instead he went into “Clinton molested underage chicks”. So what? Its a democrat style of slander, and the winning approach would have been to rise above the petty attacks of ‘sexism’ and point them out for what they are. Not throw shit back.

    1. note: I didn’t mean ‘underage’ as in, “SHE LOOKED 18!”… I just meant, younger than him to the point it was extra scummy.

      uh, no pun intended.

  19. Saw an artical on one of the conservative sites the other day titled something like the republican primary is already over and Jeb Bush is the candidate. If another Clinton-Bush contest doesn’t cause a revolt I don;t know what will. Of course I’ve been saying that same thing for years.

    1. Whoever wrote that is retarded.

      1. I agree. Typical lazy argument. Kinda like the science is settled so I win.

      2. I think some people really do fail to appreciate how much most voters want more than anything, to bury the legacies of both Bush and Clinton, and just move the fuck on.

        There are a large number on the right who still cling to a Bush ‘compassionate conservatism’, Big Government Conservative, NeoCon politics that has been roundly rejected, and should be buried and forgotten.

        1. I think so. The media people think money and connections magically mean votes. No one wants to relive the last 20 years. I don’t think Hillary has a chance in hell. But she is virtually a lock compared to Jeb Bush.

        2. And all those voices have jobs with the Post and NYT.

      3. I believe it was a link to a Weekly Standard article. Not sure if that was the title of the article or just the link html. Would have probably got it from Hot Air or Human Events.

  20. Hillary Clinton can deflect some of this criticism by nominating Bob Filner as her running mate.

    1. Colin Powell

  21. The Dems are absolutely scared shitless for the 2014 midterm and the 2016 Presidential races because of the clusterfuck of Obamacare along with the NSA nonsense. That’s why they are attacking libertarianism (EJ Donne) along with increasing the minimum wage. Granted the GOP will find someway to fuck this up but it’s great to see the Dems on the ropes.

    1. The GOP is no real alternative to any of that. Maybe on Obamacare, but even then they’ll just look to tweak it because they think most Americans like it overall, just not the part that fucks me.

  22. The problem is that Obama might be going out as a pretty unpopular president and if people hate the ACA, you can’t have him running around doing stump speeches. It may also be a matter of him not wanting to do it for Hillary. in 2012 Clinton was a favorite on the democratic ticket and gave a huge speech at the convention. If Bill has to answer some question, any questions during the campaign or is even forced to be low profile, it could be helpful.

    Anytime somebody says something about war on women, show them shaking hands with Bill. The strategy doesn’t have to attack Hillary to be successful against her campaign.

  23. I think this attack should be used not only on Hillary, but on every Democrat who appears at any function with Bill.

    Bill Clinton was, by the standards of the left, a workplace sexual predator. Again by the standards of the left, anyone who fails to denounce him and who allows him to share a podium or platform with them is empowering his workplace sexual predation. Once again by the standards of the left, there is no statute of limitations on any of this, ever.

    Denounce Bill Clinton and shun him or get punched in the face with this claim over, and over, and over – forever. That should be the litmus test applied to all Democrats, everywhere.

    It’s what the left would do to a similar figure on the right. We are morally entitled to make their actions our maxims. Jam it down their fucking throats, and never stop.

    1. Completely agree. If Republicans want to win, they should definitely talk loudly and often about the Lewinsky scandal.

      1. So you are not bothered that the Democratic Party relies on a work place sexual predator for fund raising?

        I know you are a gay man, so maybe you just don’t like women. But why does the Democratic Party at large have such a callous indifference towards women? What about Bill’s victims?

        1. Tony has no principles but prinicpals. Whenever there is a Reason article concerning the fuck ups of Obamacare or the NSA under Obama, he is mysteriously missing.

        2. Bill is not the one running for president, you ridiculous ass. I wholeheartedly want the GOP nominee to make this his strategy. Absolutely 100% yes.

          1. Hilary is running for President though. If she is going to run with the War on Women meme then whoever she runs against and the RNC should badger her with this stuff.

            1. Why does no one ever consider that Republicans should stop being so embarrassingly tone-deaf when it comes to women voters?

              1. Because it’s not the tone-deafness that’s their biggest weakness, but their meekness.

                1. and their stupidity. Don’t forget their limitless stupidity.

      2. your team opened the war on women door. Sorry if it hits them in the ass.

      3. Completely agree. If Republicans want to win, they should definitely talk loudly and often about the Lewinsky scandal.

        As part of a multi-pronged strategy to stay always on the offensive and keep hold of the initiative, I think it would work.

        Then again, if I ran a major national campaign it would go down in history as the most abusive and negative ever waged.

        1. If George W. Bush or Chris Christie pulled Clinton’s shit, they and the media would crucify him and if their wives were running for office, they would use their men’s affairs to destroy their chances of winning. They are butthurt because someone dares to point out their hypocracy.

        2. And you’d lose by historic proportions, as Rand Paul will.

          1. Chances are Rand Paul won’t be nominated. That’s the reality of it. The RNC will pick some sort of so called moderate that the press loves. Until of course the Dems choose their nominee and then will flip script and call him a monster.

          2. Most of the truly negative campaigns I can remember in my lifetime, or I’ve read about historically, were victorious.

            It’s a question of execution, surely.

            But the centerpiece of my campaign would be a laundry list of executive branch wrongdoing that’s been swept under the carpet, going back two administrations now, and a demand for sweeping reforms. So essentially every issue-oriented undertaking would involve brutalizing SOMEONE whose name was on my list.

            The public likes hate, when you execute it properly.

            1. I think of a single dirty campaign that failed. In fact, the only Republican Presidential campaigns that ever won in my life time, the media tagged as being negative.

              Anytime the media and the various leftist concern trolls scream about something being unfair, it is going to be a winning argument.

            2. Nice marketing wrap for a full-on, brutal assault on the crony/sycophant culture in DC, Fluffy. I like it.

              Easily expanded to cover Congress the co-dependent co-conspirator, too.

          3. BTW:

            Trying to be Mr. Nice Guy worked out so well for Romney, didn’t it.

            1. Sorry, I didn’t mean he’s going to lose for going negative, he’s going to lose because he’s cuckoo.

              1. Yeah, I don’t think he’s ever going to win that senate seat either.

                1. Not vaginal probe-y enough?

          4. as Rand Paul will.

            Sure whatever helps you sleep at night.

            1. Oh no, please don’t nominate Rand Paul and have him talk about Monica Lewinsky, we’ll surely lose!

        3. As part of a multi-pronged strategy to stay always on the offensive and keep hold of the initiative, I think it would work.

          Its such a target-rich environment, it would be easy to keep from getting bogged down in arguing about any particular bit of nasty.

          “Yes, Andrea, I do think its worth looking at the history of the nominees. If you think I’m going too far back with Bill Clinton’s impeachment, then we can talk about Hillary’s Benghazi, and how not one single perpetrator has been arrested and not one single bureaucrat has been fired.”

          “What’s that? What difference, at this point, does it make? Well, then, let’s talk about how Hillary’s one indispendable aide as SOS, Huma Abedin, was cashing six-figure checks on the side from foreign nationals the whole time.”

          “Oh, don’t want to drag in Ms. Abedin? OK, its your interview. What about Hillary’s financial entanglements through the Clinton foundations. ”

          And on. And on.

    2. Absolutely. Holding them to their own standards is an incredibly effective means of attack.

      This is why Tony is screaming Bush and Bo has gone full concern troll; this shit hurts and they know it.

    3. What I love about Paul’s line of attack is that he is exposing the Dem’s and feminist’s bullshit War on Women meme for what it is: to force people to pay for birth control and use the ststae to create privileges for a group of people.

  24. It’s a jab at Hillary and the Democrats. He’s just pointing out their hypocrisy. War on Wimniz, yada, yada, yada.

    It’s a good political strategy, if you ask me. He’s underlining their seediness. There’s something super icky about Bill’s creeping fingers and Hillary’s hunger for power.

    1. It’s also a desperate admission that he doesn’t want to talk about things that matter, like his political positions.

      1. Doing that worked for Obama didn’t it? We talked about contraception and the war on women rather than the imploding economy and the impending disaster known as Obamacare.

        But doing this does take the attention off the incredible amount of misery your people have inflicted on this country. So maybe you should view it as a good thing.

        1. No argument from me than the Democrats are using Republicans’ ridiculous idiocy on women’s issues to their own electoral advantage. I mean, honestly, how dare they try to win elections.

      2. Sounds to me like he was asked a question that didn’t have anything to do with his political positions, so its no mystery his answer didn’t either.

  25. I don’t think we have to worry about Hillary for president. She won’t have Obama’s crossover appeal. Vice president maybe.

    1. I’m more worried about who the GOP pick will be.

      1. They sure don’t have much to choose from.

        1. Cruz, Paul, Christie, and Walker are all contenders.

          Three of that number would become the least-bad living President the moment his hand leaves the Bible.

  26. This was a good thread that featured Toney getting roundly ass-kicked and being a craven POS. Too bad Bo showed up with his usual brand of hair-splitting inanity.

    1. That you won’t say John was craven or got his ass kicked proves what a partisan Republican shit pool this place really is.

  27. Jesus, who lit the fuse on Bo’s tampon today?

  28. 5. he cribbed it from The Starr Report.

    libertarians getting involved in issues of consensual secual activity? i’m shocked… unless…

  29. So just to double check.

    Netflix House of Cards in a thinly veiled portrait of Clinton correct?

  30. uggg… althouse. http://www.ratemyprofessors.co…..tid=594762

  31. “Why Does Rand Paul Keep Attacking Bill Clinton About Sex?”

    Because he has that right-wing Puritan streak that must attack all things perceived as sinful, like fornication.

    I’m the antidote to all of that! Write Me In in 2016 and I’ll fire the whole damn bureaucracy! It’s time for a new paradigm on Earth, where what we’re supposed to be doing is learning how to be our own Sovereign with mutual-defense treaties at a personal level. Nobody needs tribes or nations or wars or anything else when each person has the power to protect herself from predators, uniformed or otherwise.

    Freedom is my worship word!

  32. Oh, come on, now… a country dumb enough to elect Obama presidebt isn’t dumb enough to elect Hillary?

    Gimme a break!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.