Bill Clinton

Liberals' Sudden Concern About Bill Clinton's Behavior Is Cynical

The dynamics that led to Democrats protecting him haven't changed.

|

A number of notable liberals have recently decided to start taking allegations of sexual assault against former President Bill Clinton seriously. Let's just say that discarding the Clintons when they're no longer politically useful in order to retroactively grab the higher moral ground isn't exactly an act of heroism. But if we're going to relitigate history, let's get it right.

In The New York Times, for example, Michelle Goldberg spends around 75 percent of her column titled "I Believe Juanita" rationalizing why it was OK not to believe Juanita Broaddrick, who credibly accused Bill Clinton of rape decades ago. You won't be surprised to learn that Goldberg claims the politics and conspiracymongering of conservatives provoked skepticism among liberals—excuses that will be awfully familiar to anyone following the justification of Republican Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore's supporters.

The most notable problem with Goldberg's contention is that the Broaddrick allegation was uncovered by NBC News, not Richard Scaife. Well, specifically, it was uncovered by NBC News after the network sat on the story throughout the president's impeachment proceedings. According to the network, the story had to be put through an arduous fact-checking process that included figuring out where Clinton had been the day of the alleged rape—something that had been worked out in a few days' time.

Then again, the myth that most of the media was enthusiastic about uncovering damaging stories related to Clinton's background persists today. The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, for example, both had their hands on Broaddrick's rape allegation in 1992 but dropped the story. It's also worth remembering that reporter Michael Isikoff was suspended after fighting with his editors at The Washington Post for having dragged their feet on the Paula Jones story in 1994. And in 1998, Isikoff's reporting on Monica Lewinsky for Newsweek was shelved until the Drudge Report brought it to the public's attention. Only after that point did the reporting take off.

In any event, Broaddrick's story had a short shelf life despite the fact that five witnesses claimed she had told them about the rape right after it happened. There were other credible sexual assault allegations against Clinton that went largely ignored.

However reluctant editors might have been in moving forward with these stories, though, the fact is that most of them were ultimately brought to the public's attention by established news organizations, not shady right-wing outlets. Still, Democrats weren't just skeptical of these women; they often treated them with disdain and smeared them for political expediency.

Even today, there is so much throat clearing and blame shifting when it comes to talking about Clinton that it is highly unlikely the dynamics have really changed. Goldberg, for instance, links to a Brian Beutler article in which he cautions liberals to treat future accusations against Democrats in the same way liberals treated Broaddrick.

MSNBC host Chris Hayes recently tweeted, "As gross and cynical and hypocritical as the right's 'what about Bill Clinton' stuff is, it's also true that Democrats and the center left are overdue for a real reckoning with the allegations against him." Why is it gross to point out that Democrats were celebrating Clinton only last year at the Democratic National Convention—a convention focused specifically on the ascension of women in public life—even though everyone was privy to all facts regarding his behavior?

In 1998, reporter Nina Burleigh famously wrote that not only would she "be happy" to perform fellatio on Clinton for keeping abortion legal (talk about a straw man) but also that "American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs." Burleigh was an honest liberal who made the moral calculus that whatever Clinton's sins might be, his fight against the imaginary theocracy was well worth the degradation of a few women. Attacks on Clinton, she later explained, were an "insidious use of sexual harassment laws to bring down a president for his pro-female politics."

Although it wasn't said aloud often, the actions of the entire Democratic Party confirmed Burleigh's position, in spirit if not in action. The Clintons were counting on it. An unhealthy veneration for presidents and a deep disdain for the other side induces people to rationalize the worst kind of votes. It is the same calculus some partisans use when defending Moore or Sen. Bob Menendez (D–N.J.). But it takes no "courage" to speak up later—certainly not decades later; certainly not when your purpose is transparently partisan. This isn't a reckoning as much as it is a face-saving.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Permissionless Biotech Crop and Livestock Innovation

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. The Moore score so far:

    – Plenty of well deserved disapproval of his politics
    – four counts of creepy teenage dating attend, legal
    – a case of butt touching
    – one hysterical woman, kissed against her will, probably lying

    How does that remotely compare to Bill Clinton’s sex crimes?

    1. He’s a Republican from Alabama. Bill’s a woke Democrat who moved to New York.

      1. Game, Set and Match.

        Scarecrow is correct. Moore is obviously much worse than Bill Clinton.

        1. Obviously! How could any rational being think otherwise?

          1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

            This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

    2. If you haven’t been paying attention it’s hyper-partisanship in both cases. The left defends their own, just like the right defends their own. This has been happening for as long as there have been political parties. The biggest difference between Clinton and Moore is that the media is in general part of the same tribe as the ones rooting for Clinton and against Moore. Nothing more, nothing less.

      Reason’s obsession with Moore is baffling to me, honestly. I mean the guy certainly wouldn’t pass any libertarian purity tests, but neither would his opponent (maybe less-so?) or any of the Democrat deviants that didn’t get 5 articles a day devoted to their misdeeds.

      1. Reason’s obsession with Moore is baffling to me, honestly.

        Oh, come one, you “know” why. Just go ahead and say it:

        “Something something… phony prog-tards pretending to be libertarian for a paycheck… mumble mumble… waiting to be hired by WaPo…”

        1. … don’t forget “cocktail party circuit”.

          1. Dammit! I knew I was leaving something out.

          2. You didn’t even mention the Koch’s

            1. Minus the apostrophe. God I can’t believe I hit submit, please forsake me!

      2. The biggest difference is that Moore’s supporters are saying that if the accusations are true, he should step aside/down.

        That’s the major difference.

        Democrats SUPPORT Clinton even now–while they’re admitting that he was, in fact, a sexual predator whose predations could be verified outside of a he said/she said format.

        Has Al Franken resigned yet? There’s photographic evidence of him in the act of committing sexual assault–and as we all know, Al Franken firmly believes that even being accused of having committed sexual improprieties is grounds for expulsion from the Senate.

        1. Moore’s supporters, or rival Republicans?

          1. Supporters.

            Rival republicans want him to step down because he was accused.

            1. RINO’s want him gone. Not real republicans.

        2. Bullshit, there are plenty of his supporters who say it doesnt matter. and trhose who say ‘if it were true” have made it clear they are very unlikely to believe the accusers.

          Personally, I think it matters more to Moore because he is a family values hypocrite. Bill Clinton is a hypocrite too, but quite frankly, I don’t find the lewisnky scandal something to be impeached over. The real abuse was the way they treated Lewisnky after he was done with the affair. Hillary also acted disgracefully with respect to Lewisnky even though I understand her anger for Lewisnky seducing Bill(and yes, she was the one who snapped her thong). Now, if the Clinton scandal with Brodkerick is true, then he has to be arrested, not just impeached.

          I think liberals are now in a quandary as they supported over the top policies going after rape cases in colleges where innocent guys were punished in some cases. Now, the same hysteria is lumping a criminal like Weinstein with a perv like Louis CK(seriously, I do not count the women as CK’s victims. If a gay guy did that to me in my office, I would just laugh at him and make him regret jacking off in public. Women comics could easily have made fun of CK too. How is witnessing a pathetic act like that harming you? It just makes the guy a joke in front of you).

          1. I agree that the Lewinsky scandal was not something that should have caused Bill Clinton to be impeached. Fortunately, he was not impeached for that reason. It was that little matter of lying under oath that triggered the impeachment, loss of law license in Arkansas and before the Supreme Court (a big deal for an ex-attorney general of Arkansas and president of the United States) and fines of over $90K.

            As for Lewinsky seducing Bill, that may seem to be the case to the uninitiated, but enlightened SJWs will tell you it is not about so-called consent but about the balance of power. Bill, being the president of the United States and Monica, being the unpaid white house intern means that the balance of power was so tipped in Bill’s favor that her so-called consent did not count as a factor in legality of the matter.

          2. Personally, I think it matters more to Moore because he is a family values hypocrite

            I fail to see they hypocrisy. He obviously liked to date much younger women; heck, he married a much younger woman (I suspect he wanted to make up for time lost in Vietnam). But how is that anti-family-value? How is that inconsistent with Christian ethics? Arguably, having a couple of kids when you’re young and then building a career may actually be a better choice even from a feminist perspective.

            If a gay guy did that to me in my office, I would just laugh at him

            That’s the other thing that’s so weird about all this. I’m a gay man. When I was in my teens and twenties, older me were leering, grabby, and pushy. It’s one of those things that goes along with being young and pretty; it’s hardly a problem or worth obsessing over decades later. Oh, and as a 14 year old (or 18 year old for that matter), I did not end up in random people’s bedrooms or get into their cars, precisely because it’s pretty obvious what the possible consequences might have been.

        3. Take down as many democrats as possible. No matter what. Those pieces of shot don’t believe in real justice so they certainly don’t deserve it. Just wreck their lives. Every one of them deserves it.

      3. I’m not so perplexed by their paying attention to Moore overall, but I certainly thought the tone of shock — “last, party-killing straw of hypocrisy for the Republicans” — has been a bit excessive, given how much Moore’s does resemble the Clinton situation.

        No political party to date has died of hypocrisy. At most they’ve had to stay off their feet for a few days and drink a lot of fluids.

        1. No aspirin? Doctor! Is there something I can take?

          1. Put de lime in the coconut and drink it all up!

      4. “Reason’s obsession with Moore is baffling to me”

        There is a senate race going on. Sometimes the simplest explanation, etc.

    3. Am I the only one who doesn’t give a fuck?

      Moore is a shitty candidate and so is his opponent. Obviously

      But if either of them had any positions I liked, I’d want that one to win regardless of their personal foibles.

      I’d vote for the worst person who ever lived as long as they supported the things I want done in the Senate.

      1. Child molestation isn’t a “foible.”

        1. Whatever. That’s my point.

          I’d vote for him if I thought he was a great candidate. He also happens to be a terrible candidate so it’s easy to get on the moral high ground about his gropey grabby days.

          But man, if he promised to end the drug war I’d vote for him anyway. I don’t care that he groped a young teen. I care what he’s going to do to me, NOW, with the power he is given.

        2. Unless you’re Lena Dunham.

        3. I despise Roy Moore. But child molestation is a misstatement. He went after teens. Yes, the youngest of them was 14, but I think he laid a hand on only the older teens. Still not acceptable and he is definitely a creep judging by what we hear of him. But let’s not dilute the outrage of real child victims.

          1. 14 = child. Even according to age of consent laws.

        4. Interesting comment Tony. As our resident pedo commenter, how do you see it?

        5. Child molestation isn’t a “foible.”

          Lucky then that there is no evidence that Moore ever engaged in “child molestation”.

          And whatever he did do decades ago, he clearly has been rehabilitated. You people believe in rehabilitation, don’t you?

    4. Most Democratic women would like to have sex with Bill, but not with Roy.

      This is the equivalent of not wanting to prosecute the hot female teacher who banged her students, but wanting a life sentence for the male teacher who does the same thing.

  2. Does anyone realize on both sides of the political fence that this high school level anti-sex freak out will come back to haunt the rest of the population if it hasn’t already? Do you really want to live in a nation in which radical control freaks whether commie feminists or religious conservatives start censoring what you watch on TV because it may portray women as sex objects? The best way to ensure this latest pop culture bubble gum Marxist nutty witch hunt falls on the trash heap of yet another horrible fad is to stop reporting on it. The media keeps the fires burning on this type of shit.

    1. Um, no. Moore and Clinton are actual sexual deviants. They broke existing law governing improper sexual relationships and abuse of power. The difference between now and 30 years ago (heck, 1 year ago) is that the will to actually hold these dirtbags accountable is mounting. This is a good thing. It’s plausible to imagine that it goes too far and becomes a new wave of weird secular Puritanism, but we’re not nearly there yet.

      1. we’re not nearly there yet

        A lot of falsely-accused college males would beg to differ.

        1. A lot of falsely-accused college males would beg to differ.

          Agreed and while a lot of bad actors (and a few writers and producers!) seem to be taking a hit, it’s troubling that all it’s taking is the mere accusation to see people lose their jobs, being called to resign, etc. This #MeToo mentality is not healthy and that sort thing is what lead to the Title IX abuses in college, the google guy losing his job, etc. It’s possible to be glad that some of these predators are finally being taken down but worry about the change in the standards of proof and how that’s going to impact other people who are innocent.

          1. Yup. I keep saying this is a witch-hunt and that’s exactly where it’s headed.

            1. Allegations of sexual impropriety are the prefect kind of allegations, mostly because they exist as a he-said-she-said type of crime most of the time. If they’re way back in the past it’s even better, since it ensures that there is no evidence and can be no evidence.

              Thus, if you’re interested in tearing down a politician of any stripe and have few scruples just go and find someone that wants a book deal and you’ve got yourself an avenue of political attack.

              Truly, the perfect type of allegation to throw an election in your favor when you lack any type of substance. In fact, it’s even better than substance because that is boring and no one cares.

              The sad part is that this type of behavior makes it more and more difficult to believe anyone. It’s most certainly a ‘boy who cried wolf’ sort of situation.

              Just as one example, what ever happened to those women who accused Trump during the election? I haven’t heard jack or shit about that story lately. Weird!

              1. I think back to the allegations made against Clarance Thomas. Even if true, that I am aware, it has had zero reflection on his tenure as a justice. No further allegations, no apparent conflict of interest; so what am I to make of his history in total?

                Not to mention there is the question of venue. Even discounting eye-witness testimony is the most dubious in any court proceeding, is twitter really the best vehicle to obtain justice (especially decades after)? This seems more like vigilantism, bypassing the courts, where standards of evidence are in effect. How long until there is an Innocence Project for twitter feeds?

                I remind everyone of the McMartin Preschool trial. At the time, the most costly persecution in the history of the US, digging up the school to reveal satanic ritual grounds… certainly there are no parallels to today.

                1. I’ve been thinking of those child molestation accusations so popular in the 1980s too. I recall that small town in Washington State where even the investigation team was accused of being part of a child sex ring. Literally, the entire town was accused. Fortunately, that little bit of contemporary hysteria pretty much brought an end to that circus since there was no where to go with it but totally insane. What happened to all those child sex rings since? I guess maybe we put a complete stop to it and caught those in the 1980s and no one has been a child molester since. Or perhaps we’ve moved on to a new moment in mass hysteria. And like then, the latest witch hunt is more than eagerly encouraged by the MSM regardless of how outrageous the accusations. The media seems to relish the absurdity of it all. No one even has a sense of humor about it. They would be accused as a rapist if they did. I I can’t believe that grown adults in the 21st century has descended to such lunacy. It’s truly mind blowing.

      2. Also Anthony Weiner has some thoughts he’d like to share regarding the enforcement of existing laws for the 1-year-ago timeframe.

        1. Poor Weiner made the critical error of leaving behind easily found evidence.

      3. No, the difference now is that it’s politically expedient to dump clinton. Did you even read the article? And while we’re on the subject, how do you feel about ted kennedy or his older brother?

        1. I’ve got a tattoo of JFK on my left butt cheek, Bobby on the right and that’s Teddy there in the middle.

          1. Funny Balzac or is that Teddy?

        2. Ether to put both Clintons in prison.

  3. As a Democrat and moderately enthusiastic H.Clinton voter, this is uncomfortably accurate. I was too young to vote for Bill Clinton or even be paying attention in the 90’s, but the time has long past to send him out to pasture. I think a fair amount of Democrats hide behind the fact that “Clinton” happened in the 90’s, and they tell themselves that the party has changed since then. Problem is, Bill is still an important member of the party and is relied on for fundraising, speeches, etc. If Democrats want to walk the walk, this needs to end.

    I’m troubled though by the dismissive attitude towards change. It seems when either party attempts to better themselves, political opponents are quick to deem it hollow – “they did so-and-so that one time, so all attempts to do differently are just cover.” Yeah, maybe, but maybe not. Particularly when it comes to social norms, things change very fast now. I understand new behavior needs to be shown, not told, but questioning motive so brutally makes for a worse relationship between factions.

    1. It seems when either party attempts to better themselves, political opponents are quick to deem it hollow – “they did so-and-so that one time, so all attempts to do differently are just cover.”

      Politicians have been talking about reforming Washington for about as long as it’s been the nation’s capitol. Members of both parties’ have been caught in lies… repeatedly… for as long as anyone’s been fact-checking them. Both parties seem far more interested in symbolism than action.

      You bet I have a dismissive attitude towards their desire and ability to change.

      1. Yeah I get that, skepticism is well-deserved. I wish people wouldn’t be quite so cynical, though. Politicians and people CAN be principled. Not every move is a part of a Machiavellian scheme to get one over on an opponent.

        And I’m more talking about societal norms – like taking women seriously when they make sexual harassment/assault allegations – than Washington politics in particular.

        1. I think what some people will point out in this case is the failure to hold Bill accountable until after it became an albatross, somewhat after the societal norms shifted. Not a long time, but longer than it should have taken.

        2. There is good reason to be cynical.

          In politics, scum rises to the top.
          The very few who are principled are prevented from upsetting the status quo by the scum who hold the reins.

          1. Yeah, I don’t think most people are cynical enough.

          2. To paraphrase the old line from “Harper”, only cream and bastards…

          3. Thank God for limited government. Oh, wait….

        3. Taking women seriously when they make sexual harassment/assault allegations?

          Are you kidding?

          Republicans got ripped up one side and down the other for trying to take women seriously when they made sexual harassment/assault allegations. They wanted to prosecute–tried to prosecute.

          But Dems and their allies in the media seem to feel that a sexual assaulter, predator, harasser, and possible rapist is more valuable when he’s in a position to make laws against sexual assault, predation, harassment, and date rape (that don’t apply to Democrats).

          Republican sex scandals usually end with a resignation or a prosecution. Democrat sex scandals become juicy tidibits in memoirs or unauthorized biographies.

          Unless someone keeps on top of them they disappear.

          1. Republicans in the 90s. Truly history’s great feminist heroes.

            1. Can’t face the other side, Tony?

        4. Perhaps I tend in the opposite direction in the sense that IMO, sexual harassment has been redefined to be so broad that everyone commits it once a week, and all sense of proportionality or skepticism is lost.

          For example, I don’t think what Al Frankenstein did is a very big deal. A dumb joke, at most warranting a public apology (and I loath the guy for his politics). Nor am I convinced Bill Clinton actually sexually assaulted anyone. Maybe he did, but as likely as not he didn’t. People lie, and they are more likely to lie when a lot of money, power, and publicity are in the table, so we most certainly should not merely ‘listen and believe.’

          People have gone crazy on matters related to sex. There’s no rational thinking. Each side is perpetually trying to get the other side hoisted on its own petard, which is a recipe for widespread moral panic.

    2. The thing is, Republicans aren’t going to give Democrats any credit for throwing their leaders overboard. They, long comfortable with hypocritical sexual deviancy, as all religious moralists have always been, simply laugh and point. They elected a man far more problematic than Bill Clinton. Their line appears to be somewhere down near child molestation.

      We can choose not to harm ourselves with excessive self-flagellation. God knows the Republicans don’t bother.

      1. Harvey, Al, and Bill thank you for unflagging support.

      2. “They elected a man far more problematic than Bill Clinton.”

        No. Just no. I guess you could stretch the allegations against Trump into something that says the two of them are roughly equal, sort of, but I haven’t seen any credible allegation of actual forcible rape against Trump. You know, involving torn panty hose and bloody lips and that sort of stuff.

        You’ve been very active attacking people for “supporting a pedophile” by trying to excuse the scumbag Moore, but you still can’t keep yourself from propping up Bill the Rapist. There’s a word for that type of mental gymnastics, and it begins with an ‘h’.

        1. His own wife accused him of rape. Oh yeah, he also bragged about grabbing women by the pussy.

          I was most thinking, though, of how he would use his authority as head of teen beauty pageants to walk in on the girls as they were changing.

          1. Trump is truly awful in every aspect of his personality. But saying he’s “more problematic than Bill Clinton” in his treatment of women is just bullshit. You’re in the state of denial that is typical of the political partisan.

          2. Because, sure, walking in on a woman while she’s changing is every bit as bad as holding a woman down on a bed, ripping her hose, biting her lip until it bleeds, and raping her. Hell, everybody knows those two things are the same.

            1. Walking in on young girls changing, not women.

              1. Is worse than violent rape?

                So, Tony has now excused both rape and child molestation so far this week.

                But at least he’s maintained his perfect record of always projecting his horribleness onto others.

                1. I’m sure Tony also has very good excuses for his pedophilia.

          3. That line is so tiresome now.

            Talk about over blowing a stupid comment many a guy has said – and women. My wife tells me how she’s heard women over the years be just as crude about their escapades with men. How they ‘sucked balls off and loved it’. That sort of thing.

            Some of those women were probably into it anyway. That was his point. Groupies they’re called.

            What Trump said is NOWHERE near what Bill did who assaulted women and in the case of Lewinsky his wife set out to destroy her.

            You look and sound like such a disingenuous hack when you pull this shit.

            1. You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.

              1. Well, you certainly seem to think admitted sexual assault is a joke.

              2. No I’m not because you’re conflating, blurring, and meshing to the point of forcing us to explain to you how flippant your blathering nonsense is.

              3. Talk > action apparently.

              4. No tony, he’s not.

          4. Your moral outrage is laughable, Tony. But please, keep it up. This is the funniest shit I’ve seen in a long, long time.

        2. There’s another, begins with “a”.

      3. Is killing someone bad? I think that’s supppsed to be bad. Remind me what happened July 18, 1969. Remind me what happened to the driver of the vehicle.

        1. He was one of the “special” class of people, to which the rest of us should be beholden for our decency and civility. What’s one dead young woman in the face of such grandeur. Hell! For that matter, how many times did his brother try to have Castro assassinated?

      4. Even by your own hyper-partisan standards this is rich and abhorrent Tony.

        1. But tell me more, nonpartisan free-thinker, about Ted Kennedy and, I dunno, FDR while we’re at it.

          1. Talking to you is dizzying.

          2. You’re the one who brings up Trump to deflect away from any accusation against a Democrat; so what if people respond by printing up Clinton? You’re upset that they’re whatabouting your whataboutism? Grow up.

          3. Tony, you are the poster child for why progressives need to be driven out of America.

    3. Are you unaware that Hillary aided and abetted Bill’s sexual assault? At least after the fact?

      http://www.washingtontimes.com…..troy-bill/

      Best case she tolerated them in pursuit of her own ambitions.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..cb66966487

    4. Not trying to pick on you, but genuinely curious how a Clinton voter would reconcile the notion that Bill and Hill want to help others, bring America together, etc…with the overwhelming examples of their disdain for and cynical usage of people they see as threats to their personal power.

    5. The best possible thing now is that Sessions quits going after drugs and focuses on putting democrats in prison. So many of them are so easily proven guilty.

  4. “Why is it gross to point out that Democrats were celebrating Clinton only last year at the Democratic National Convention?a convention focused specifically on the ascension of women in public life?even though everyone was privy to all facts regarding his behavior?”

    One would think that’s somewhat… problematic.

    1. Never underestimate the power of rationalization.

      1. Reason trumps all!

  5. Wow! Where to begin with Burleigh’s banality? Her ascertain/assumption is that one man Bill Clinton, was able to keep abortion legal and Bible Thumpers at bay. Proof that she knows little about political systems and their workings. Or about humans and their behavior, which in numbers can be quite forceful.

    Her other ascertain is that, despite being strong, independent, and intelligent, women NEED big powerful men to protect them and keep them safe. And in return for that security women should happily line up to suck men’s dick’s and otherwise offer their bodies to men because, in Burleigh’s mind, that’s what a women’s worth comes down to.

    YAY Feminism!

    1. Proof that she knows little about political systems and their workings. Or about humans and their behavior, which in numbers can be quite forceful.

      About the only thing that dumb cunt “knows” is “Democrats = good, RethugliKKKanz = bad.”

      1. That covers Tony as well.

  6. Now that these sexual harassment allegations have made their way through Hollywood to Washington, DC, to Congress, one thing is absolutely clear:

    We’re probably making way to big a deal about this, folks. People have diddly parts and try to diddle a lot. It’s just human. Let’s MoveOn.org. Show’s over. Everyone’s human, let’s live and let live.

    1. Just curious, did you have the same sentiment when news broke about Trump’s locker room boast?

      1. That was then. It was a different time back then.

    2. I sure as hell did. Locker room talk is what boys do. Panty bunching has reached critical levels. #FirstWorldProblems.

    3. I now realize this is sarcasm, but I quite agree.

      If you think a guy coming into you in an elevator is traumatic, you should be in a psychiatric ward wearing a diaper, because that’s just not an adult disposition.

      1. I really hope you meant “coming onto you.” Because these are kinda different things.

  7. I suppose it’s too much to hope that popular awareness of such despicable behavior leads to widespread skepticism regarding the nature and desirability of power. [kicks pebble]

    1. I, for one, am optimistic that if we just elect the right scumbag into office then everything will be fine.

  8. If ever a picture demanded an alt text………

  9. Then again, the myth that most of the media was enthusiastic about uncovering damaging stories related to Clinton’s background persists today.

    Cue the hissing and spitting from one or more of our resident trolls.

      1. Tony’s pager just went off.

        1. He sets it on vibrate and shoves it up his ass.

  10. If one good thing may come from the growing willingness of liberals to distance themselves from Big Bubba it could be the end of Hillary as a viable candidate. After all, she’s the one who enabled and apologized for him all those years. I suppose liberals could claim that she was a victim too, but a woman in a position of power who seeks more power on the basis that she was a victim while in power is hardly attractive as a candidate. And considering that one of the major players in the wings is Groper Joe, the Dems may indeed be in trouble for 2020. Perhaps I’ll sleep a little better tonight

    1. And considering that one of the major players in the wings is Groper Joe, the Dems may indeed be in trouble for 2020.

      Oprah. Mark my words.

      1. A new car for every american!

    2. … but a woman in a position of power who seeks more power on the basis that she was a victim while in power is hardly attractive as a candidate.

      You have been gone from the college seem for while, haven’t you?

      1. *scene* – damn you auto-correct, damn you.

    3. the Dems may indeed be in trouble for 2020.

      Michelle Obama/ Elizabeth Warren ticket in 2020.

      Perhaps I’ll sleep a little better tonight

      Sweet dreams.

      1. Warren Harris is my bet for 2020.

        1. I don’t think the DNC will be dumb enough run two ‘coastal elites’ on the same ticket. They’ll be smarter and do Warren plus some midwesterner like McCaskill. Or some governor, though they’ve few of those left.

      2. They gave Bill a pass too. They’re all tainted.

    4. With the backing of the mainstream media, whoever the Democrats select as their nominee will have at least a 45% favorable rating/chance of winning.

  11. Bill Clinton did not sexually assault either Monica Lewinsky or Paula Jones. The Clinton-Lewinsky affair was an affair between two consenting adults, something Reason is usually down with. Paul Jones never alleged that Clinton physically touched her. Juanita Brodderick stated in a sworn affidavit that she was not raped by Clinton, then “changed her mind”. Her first claims were made public long after the statute of limitations had lapsed. Reason has wisely oppose extending SOL for sexual crimes. There is no doubt that Big Bill is a compulsive lecher. That, in my mind, is not an impeachable offense.

    The fact is, Ronald Reagan committed far more serious offenses, and he committed them while in office. He sold weapons to an unfriendly nation, violating his own policy of never “negotiating with terrorists”, and converted the proceeds to his own use, funding military operations in Nicaragua, in direct violation of U.S. policy as embedded in a law he had signed. If a Democratic president had committed either of these acts, a Republican Congress would have impeached him. If Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton had asked the director of the FBI, repeatedly, for his personal loyalty, if they had urged him not to investigate a member of their administration, if they had fired the director, they would have been impeached. The long-running Republican campaign against Bill Clinton was politically motivated harassment, pure and simple.

    1. The fact is, Ronald Reagan committed far more serious offenses

      Namely, defeating Soviet communism in Europe. Right, comrade?

      1. In Alan’s mind, that was Reagan’s REAL crime.

    2. If a Democratic president had committed either of these acts, a Republican Congress would have impeached him.

      LOL

      1. Lying under oath isn’t a crime??

        1. The acts in question were Iran-Contra.

          Every presedent has done things equally bad or worse without being impeached.

          1. Like weaponizing the IRS and paying unauthorized ransoms to Iran?

            1. I was thinking of Fast ‘n’ Furious but those will do too.

              1. Why can’t it be both?

    3. Paul Jones never alleged that Clinton physically touched her.

      He just got her in his office alone, pulled out his dick and asked her if she wanted to kiss it. But since he didn’t out and out rape her, it is just no big deal.

      Jesus Christ, you are an embarrassment.

      1. Paula Jones’ sister said sis was lying. On the day of their fateful encounter a co-worker told Jones her outfit wasn’t proper for work. The state trooper/pimp told her “The governor says you make his knees knock and wants to speak with you in his hotel room.” Sounds innocent to me.

        The basis for Jones’ suit was not that Clinton had exposed himself to her but that he “retaliated” when she refused to have sex with him. Her evidence? That on secretary’s day all the “help” got roses except her. Raises and promotions? Check. Roses? No. Jones’ suit was enabled every step of the way by Republican lawyers and Republican money.

        1. And since truth was on billy’s side he didn’t need to settle, right?

        2. Bill Clinton paid an enormous settlement to Jones and was disbarred for lying in the deposition during the case. And because you say without any citation Jones’ sister says she was lying, Jones was lying?

          What the hell is wrong with you?

          1. SAYS THE BREATHLESS DEFENDER OF THE KID FUCKER.

            1. Says the breathless defender of the murderer.

              1. Haven’t I already asked you to provide evidence of any defense I’ve made of Ted Kennedy?

                1. Have you provided evidence for any claim you’ve ever made about anything?

                2. Tony, there is no defense. The facts have never been in dispute. The only unanswered questions could lead to the whole thing being a planned homocide, not his exoneration.

            2. Kid fucker? Tony, no one is defending you.

    4. There is no doubt that Big Bill is a compulsive lecher. That, in my mind, is not an impeachable offense.

      Granted, lying to the American people is implied in the job description, but lying to a congressional investigative body, under oath, well …

      1. Using the power of the Presidency to slander and destroy women you harassed and had affairs with for saying what you know to be true is a problem as well.

      2. He was just extremely careless with the truth – – – –
        So no indictment there.

    5. Alan Vanneman is a rape apologist. Who knew.

    6. “Juanita Brodderick stated in a sworn affidavit that she was not raped by Clinton, then “changed her mind”. Her first claims were made public long after the statute of limitations had lapsed.”

      Well you really should take this up with Ms. Goldberg. But from her article we learned Brodderick told multiple people at the time of the alleged attack, as well as the FBI when questioned (who’s “false statement” rule seems to be a lot more rigorously enforced than perjury on affidavits), bringing the total score to something like 6-1. Not perfect, but not nearly as one-sided as you imply.

    7. Bill Clinton did not sexually assault either Monica Lewinsky or Paula Jones. The Clinton-Lewinsky affair was an affair between two consenting adults, something Reason is usually down with

      Anal, we’re not talking about what Reason is ‘down with'(you’re so hip!).

      We’re talking about the fact that a boss having sex with his subordinates is sexual harassment to Dems in any other situation. The party without power can not consent freely.

      There’s an entire industry built on this presumption–and Bill Clinton was one of it’s architects—provided that Dems were immune, of course

    8. Thr Lewinsky Affair was between an intern and the CEO of an organization that employs tens of millions of people. Such a power disparity was considered an inherent problem in the sexual harassment moral panic the Democrats fostered after the Thomas confirmation, of which Clinton was an ostentatious supporter of the panic and the laws that made such consensual relationships actionable.

  12. If the breaking news is that the leadership in our national political class and a good majority of our national political leaders are hypocritical, opportunistic and too often generally terrible people it’s not exactly breaking news. That they often mirror the A-listers in Hollywood is also not a coincidence. Include our national media class as well. Narcissism isn’t a trait limited to our current President and certainly isn’t limited by political party.

    In this light our newest Internet Age sex panic has been fascinating to watch. While we furiously try to erase certain people and art (Mr. Weinstein, Mr. Spacey, now Mr. Clinton et al) from memory one wonders exactly where it stops. JFK (he probably boned half of Hollywood)? Ronald Reagan (ibid)? Shall we remove Mr. Picasso from the world’s museums (he was, by accounts, a genuinely terrible individual)? Peggy Guggenheim (sex predator!!)? MLK (he boned Joan Baez!!! Probably.).

    This New Morality reeks of a reaction formation. Impassioned and hollow at its core.

    1. This New Morality reeks of a reaction formation. Impassioned and hollow at its core.

      Which is why it’s most likely a passing fad more than anything. Once the Weinsteins and Spaceys and Bubba Clintons of the world have been taken down a peg or two, spent a couple of months at some “sex addiction rehab” $5,000 a day resort, and emerged to make sincere enough sounding public mea-culpas (while not really meaning a word of it), everyone will move on to a different shiny object.

      1. People said the same thing about previous attempts to memory-hole problematic historical figures. Except this time statues are coming down with joyful abandon. I think both panics are related and are being carried to extemes I don’t recall seeing in decades.

        1. I suspect an unintended consequence of the statue ‘relocation’ program.
          More and more people will be shat upon by pigeons with nowhere to roost.
          Enter a new federal program to provide umbrellas to low income individuals.

        2. I agree. I think this bizarre sex panic will leave serious damage in it’s wake.

    2. My favorite poet hated Jews and not in a normal way.

      1. So hating Jews is “normal” as long as you do it the right way?

        1. You tell me. You’ve cast your lot with the party of Nazis. You probably even eat Papa John’s for political reasons.

          1. You said it. I don’t know anything about hating Jews. You seem to be a bit of an expert. What is the “normal way to hate Jews?” You said it not me. What does that mean?

            1. My favorite poet was more of an anti-Semite than was even typical for his era.

              1. What are you blathering about?

          2. Tony, National Socialists were far left. There is no far right socialism. It is evil, so it fits with all the other leftism.

            Knowing this, yout should finally pack it in and commit suicide. Everyone hates you just as much ass you hate yourself deep down. No one could ever love you, and you make the world a worse place to live.

      2. Interesting, my favorite Jew hated poets.

  13. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..3bc993334b

    http://twitter.com/Belairviv/s…..1187472385

    Here is proof of how much bullshit their sudden concern over Bill Clinton is. If you are a woman and a Prog politician assaults you, this is how you can expect to be treated. Maybe 20 years later after the politician is no longer useful to the movement the people who called you a whore and said you were asking for it will then say they were just overcome by those damned cynical Republicans and say they now believe you.

    1. Holy hell that first link. That is a true believer in the cause.

      1. Sure Franken is bad but all of those Republicans who haven’t assaulted or harassed anyone are worse!!

        These people are scary.

        1. She’s Tony in a dress.

          1. What is amazing about them is that kicking Franken over the side wouldn’t hurt the cause. Minnesota has a Democratic governor who would appoint some empty suit Prog who would vote just like Franken. But they still won’t do it. They just can’t bring themselves to admit Republicans could ever be right about something.

            1. You are such a shameless fucking hypocrite it makes the universe weep.

              1. Tell us more about how it is okay to grope sleeping women Tony.

                1. Stop confirming what I just said, it’s embarrassing me.

                  1. Tell us more about the glories of underage hookers and groping sleeping women and how Menendez and Franken deserve to be in the Senate.

                    1. After you recant your hundreds of posts defending child molester Roy Moore.

                    2. Tony still doesn’t understand empiricism.

                      Color me shocked.

                    3. Anonymous sources and right-wing blogs are not empirical.

                    4. Blue dresses and photographs, however, are.

                    5. And, additionally, you seem to think anonymous sources and left wing blogs are empirical which makes one wonder how consistent you really are.

                      Just kidding, no one here wonders. We already know you’re consistently inconsistent.

                    6. Roy Moore’s accusers are the people who allege that he touched, not left-wing blogs.

                    7. Get a room! The rest of us are sick of both of you.

                    8. Sucks you be you I guess.

      2. Must be fun getting paid to study something that doesn’t exist.

    2. She’s a Playboy Playmate, a gun fanatic and a tRump supporter. You decide.

      Hmm, ok. I’ve decided you’re a bitch.

    3. Oh, WaPo, never change.

      1. Then there is always Reason alum Dave Weigal. He is not making full contact!!

        http://twitter.com/redsteeze/s…..4974775298

        What a dirtbag.

        1. Honestly, without knowing the dynamics of that situation it’s hard to judge since Franken was a comedian and it seems that comedians think they’re above that kind of allegation. I could see Franken doing what he did purely as a joke with a porn ‘actress’ but at the same time just because someone was a porn actress doesn’t mean grabbing their tits out of the blue is allowed unless she agrees and you’ve got the cash to pay her.

          I wouldn’t lump Franken in with the rest quite yet, since it seems rather convenient on the timing of her allegations as well. I suspect she said what she said precisely because of the Moore allegations, but it’s also pretty undeniable she has actual evidence on her side if she wants to pursue charges or the like.

          Maybe we should ask the photographer?

          1. Maybe we should ask the photographer?

            That would be his brother.


            1. That would be his brother.

              Ouch, did not know that.

          2. The act in the picture doesn’t bother me so much as the fact he sent the picture to the entire crew. He put it on the CD (DVD?) of all the travel photos that was distributed.

            That isn’t a joke. That is explicitly degrading.

  14. If liberals weren’t mentioning Clinton, you’d be bitching about that too and calling us hypocrites.

    We’re having our little moral panic that some people feel is necessary, and liberals of course never miss an opportunity to turn on their own if it means they get to signal to other people what good people they are.

    Sorry you’re butthurt that the Democrats didn’t live up to the high libertarian standard of who gives a fuck.

    1. But you did. You just quit on it when it became politically inconvenient.

      1. I too draw a line when it comes to diddling children. I realize this seems to be controversial in these parts.

        1. But not rape apparently. Tony is a rape apologist. Who knew.

        2. forgive me, Tiny, but what does your reply have to do with your multi-decades long support of a sexuall assaulter until he became a political liability?

          1. As I have patiently explained, I was a very anti-Clinton Republican in the 90s. I’ve never supported him for any office. But do go on and say how his wife, who I did support, is responsible for his sexual deviancy. Just go on and say it.

            1. I’ll take accessory for $1000, Alex. Remind me what she said about his accusers. Remind me when she recanted that defence.

              1. Hillary Clinton and her various toadies in the media were planning to portray Lewinsky as a stalker and mentally ill. Hillary Clinton planned to totally destroy Lewinsky’s reputation and life even though she knew Lewinsky was telling the truth and was just caught up in the Ken Starr investigation and wasn’t willing to commit perjury to protect Bill Clinton.

                But Hillary cares so much about women. Remember that.

              2. Remind me when you were ever a real libertarian.

                I expect the accused and the spouse of the accused to defend the accused. Not to announce his guilt to the world. It’s the state’s job to prove wrongdoing. We usually agree on that when you don’t have a partisan stick up your ass.

                1. So by protecting him, she does have some responsibility for the unjust outcomes regarding a sexual deviant preying upon young defenseless women?

                2. So as long as you’re married to the accused you have to support them? Your entire argument about the nobility of the authoritarian left comes from this mythical willingness to hold members of its team accountable. You are repeatedly shown cases where that is not true including a case were a lionized senator was re-elected for DECADES after his own actions caused the death of a young woman and only his powerful family connections kept him out of prison. You then go on to claim that Hillary had nothing to do with Bill’s awful behavior through the 80s and 90s. And when shown thatbshe actually DEFENDED him in public and trashed his accusers and to this day still has not thrown him under the bus, your response is it’s all just a marital duty.

                  Never change, Tony.

                  1. You don’t have to defend your spouse, but I’m not surprised when it happens. I’m just not going to do the job of prosecutors for them. When did you start sucking cop cock?

                    And just spare me with the Ted Kennedy bullshit. What do you want me to say? The man’s dead. At least you found someone from the past half century to deflect from Trump and Moore. Congratulations I guess.

                    1. You claimed that Hillary didn’t have any involvement. She did. Then you tried to deflect by saying it’s OK if it’s your spouse. Then you tried to re-deflect by saying you’re not surprised.

                      Even better you trot out “cop sucking” as a defense for kennedy whom you finally imply has no defense but that was from “the past half century.” Since you seem to have forgotten, the accusations against Moore are also from the past century and only about 10 years younger than Ted’s vehicular manslaughter. But, BUT, Moore!!!

                      Never change, Tony.

                    2. I didn’t claim Hillary had no involvement. I claim that the wife is not responsible for the wrongdoing of her husband, and that I fully expect both husband and wife to defend him in courts of public opinion or any other kind.

                      You want not only me to do cops’ job for them, but the accused and his wife as well. Some freedom lover.

                    3. You’re willing to do the cops job for Moore, Tony. Some warrior for justice.

                    4. Roy Moore has made it clear that he exists on a different plane than mortal law.

                    5. Exactly. In a case like this, we expect our politicians and their spousess to lie, cheat, and steal to protect themselves, and it’s really someone else’s job to figure out the real truth.

                      And we’re totally consistent with that position, left and right.

            2. Who said anything about offices?

            3. Tony, you were NEVER a republican. You fucking lying piece of shit.

        3. I too draw a line when it comes to Republicans diddling children

          FTFY

    2. Tony, who was the last sitting Democrat that was thrown under the bus when they were accused of this kind of stuff (and worse)?

      I can’t think of any. Lefties don’t turn on their own until the perpetrators are long out of office and have outlived any usefulness. There’s not enough time to list the people you’ve circled the wagons for just in the last 10 years. Lois Lerner, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Menendez (who is currently accused of sex with underage prostitutes)… I mean we could just go on and on and on.

      The Republicans seem to turn on their own pretty regularly–Moore’s accused and they immediately said they’d expel him if he wins and demanded he stop his campaign. The Republican establishment completely disowned Trump. Heck, when Todd Akin said something dumb every Republican turned on him. We can go on and on.

      1. This argument has no credibility as long as Trump is president. And please, spare me the rightwing conspiracy horseshit. I didn’t sleep well.

        1. All of those things happened before Trump ever went into politics. So explain why the left never held a single sitting politician accountable for anything before Trump? Answer his question.

          1. Anthony Wiener objects. As does Chaka Fattah, Jesse Jackson Jr., John Edwards, William Jefferson, Mel Reynolds, and others. What’s hilarious is that you are taking the fact that the Republicans are far, far more corrupt and hat more of them are behind bars an argument in their favor. Just look at the Trump administration alone. The shit they’re on the line for is worse than anything to come before, because it probably includes treason. And by the way are you still defending probable child molester Roy Moore today?

            1. Fatah, Jackson and Jefferson and Reynolds all went to jail. Wow, you stopped supporting politicians after they received long prison sentences. And they only turned on Edwards when it became necessary to get Obama nominated.

              Try again.

              1. So what are you asking for exactly? That I become a psychic and predict corruption before it’s made news?

                That kid fucker you’re defending is all over the news, or didn’t you notice?

                1. I am asking you to show a leftist politician who wasn’t going to prison or no longer valuable to the left who was forced out of politics. It has never happened and never will. Al Franken could have been shown raping that woman and unless DOJ sent him to prison, people like you would still defend him just like you defended Kennedy and Clinton.

                2. Tony, you’re the pedohile. Right, chickenhawk?

            2. The left didn’t hold those people accountable, the legal system did.

              1. Who on the left defended them?

                1. What does that have to do with holding them accountable?

                  1. What does holding them accountable mean?

                    I’m an anti-cop liberal. Let the prosecutors prove their case. I’m not into torch-bearing mobs, including the current one.

                    1. It doesn’t mean “not defending them.”

                2. The entire left defended them until they went to jail. Yes, when a person goes to prison, the left will walk away from them. That is the standard of behavior. As long as you don’t go to jail and remain valuable to the cause, you can do anything and the left will still defend you.

                  Thanks for helping to make our point.

                  1. And the Right gives them a job at FOX News.

                    1. And the left makes them a Lion of the Senate. Thanks for pointing out how much worse the left is than the right.

                    2. The right puts an admitted rapist who expresses sexual interest in his daughter and teenage girls into the White House.

                    3. And the left keeps an admitted rapist who vacations on an island for pedophiles in the office.

                    4. Your vicious dishonesty is truly breathtaking. Never give up the con no matter what, right?

            3. *yawn*

              Ted Kennedy
              John Kennedy
              Bob Menendez
              Al Gore

              would all like to have a word with you.

              Why are you still defending a murderer, Tony?

              1. Why are you such a shameless partisan Republican hack pretending to be a libertarian?

                1. No response other than name calling, Tony?

                  Why are you such a shameless Democrat partisan hack pretending that you support anything othet than expedient access to power?

                  1. Link me to one time I’ve ever even mentioned Ted Kennedy, let alone defended him. I’ll wait.

                    1. JFC you’re never going to get it

                    2. No, I’m never going to become a Republican. Sorry.

                    3. You also think “not defending” is the same as “hold accountable” and that hiding behind due process has anything to do with admissions of guilt.

                      Yes, we know you are special.

                    4. Show me your condemnation, Tony. That is the standard that you set. Time to live up to your own rules.

                    5. The standard I set? I’m not interested in joining a torch-bearing mob along with many of my fellow liberals. And you’re not interested in a remotely good-faith discussion.

                    6. So no condemnatiin then, and you’re still a rape apologist.

                    7. I condemn rape.

                    8. Tony condemns rape as long as it isn’t committed by a Democratic politician currently holding office.

                    9. Except when it’s Bill Clinton raping.

                    10. I don’t accuse people of rape who haven’t either raped me or been convicted of rape. Sorry. I’m a libertarian like that.

                    11. You literally called trump a rapist downthread. Yes, you do accuse ppl who have not raped you or been convicted.

                    12. Well, yes, Tony is also a liar.

                    13. Okay, let me add “and people who admit to raping on tape.”

                    14. Like Clinton did?

                    15. Gonna need a citation for that. Nowhere did he claim to have “raped” someone. Now if you want to claim that the recordings of him and billy bush say that, then I get to claim that Barry’s “flexibility” chat with Medvedev is prima facie evidence of treason.

                    16. Now all of a sudden the definition of rape must be acutely parsed. Now that it’s Trump. Because other than all the sexual assault he admitted to, he really is such a great president and good guy.

                      I hate you people.

                    17. ” Now that it’s Trump”

                      Well, no, as anyone can see you’ve been doing it for decades.

                    18. I also notice the qualifier only appeared after you were caught lying.

                    19. Another lie from Tony. Trump never admitted to taping anyone. That was the whole point of dpsaykmg “and they let you”. FFS you’re a lying piece of shit.

                    20. Well you’re the authority on bad faith argumentation, Tony.

        2. I guess that makes sense Tony, if you ignore that many Democrats including a sitting President overlooked Bill’s behavior, while simultaneously persecuting college men for far less.

          1. The kangaroo courts for college rape accusations is, I have said before, the one thing the left got wrong that the right got correct.

            1. Sure you have Tony. LOLOLOLOLOL

              You really are a good comedy act sometimes.

            2. So not overlooking Bill’s behavior then. You think that’s just fine

              1. I think I’ll tell someone what I think about Bill’s behavior when they’re not bringing him up for cynical partisan asshole reasons.

                1. Because you think it’s jist fine. We know, you said it already.

                  1. I don’t know what to think because Republicans turned mere accusations against Clinton into such an embarrassing national spectacle that they made it nearly impossible to judge anything on empirically based merits.

                    By the standard you’re feebly trying to apply to me, did you “hold accountable” Dennis Hastert when he was diddling little boys?

                    1. Hastert is a convicted criminal, isn’t he?

                    2. Listen, we get it, you’re a rape apologist. You literally said “I have said before, the one thing the left got wrong that the right got correct.” You had a chance to denounce his behavior, and the left’s behavior in response, that he admitted to and is easily by any working definition sexual harassment bordering on assault. This is what he has admitted.

                      And still, to this moment, you’re defending the rapist. Your high road act is loathesome.

                    3. I think I’ve been consistent on due process in this matter and even praised my political opponents for being better on the issue. You just want me to join your little lynch mob that only applies to Democrats. Obviously I’m not going to do that. Whoever the fuck you are.

                    4. Stop it. You’re a rape apologist.

                    5. You’re not being sincere when you say that. You and I both know that if I took the standard liberal line you’d be criticizing me for that too. There’s a thing called good faith. Just because very few people here have it doesn’t mean you, whoever the fuck you are, has to play along.

                    6. “You’re not being sincere when you say that”

                      Oh yes I am.

                    7. So, does the fact that I reference his admissions and you hide behind due process mean you’rd out of defenses or just not smart enough to understand that due process has nothing to do with anything.

                    8. Are you saying that because he actually got due process? What do you want from me that is over and above impeachment? We have a much worse criminal and sexual deviant in the White House right now. Shall I take your not mentioning him as a defense?

                    9. “What do you want from me that is over and above impeachment? ”

                      Any actual action by you to correcf the problem tjat doesn’t rely on others, including any denunciations. These must be for his admitted sexual misbehavior and perjury.

                    10. I’ve never even met Bill Clinton. Not sure what I can do that a bunch of cheating child fuckers in the GOP did to him in the 90s.

                      Answer me on Trump now.

                    11. I alrwady did, and you are still a rape apologist.

                    12. “Not sure what I can do that a bunch of cheating child fuckers in the GOP did to him in the 90s.”

                      Openly denounce him, and call for his investigation and prosecution.

                    13. Tony, as a cheese pizza conneiusser yourself, you just recognize that the preponderance of kiddie fuckers are communists, just like you. It fits better, as democrats always campaign on having no values or standards. You’re soulless, morally bereft things. Which is easy as none of you believe in actual individual rights. Instead you babble on about nonsense, like ‘collective rights’ and other Marxist bullshit.

                    14. ” Shall I take your not mentioning him as a defense?”

                      You can, at which point I will openly denounce him again, and say that he needs to be imvestigated fully and prosecuted for any sexual crimes.

                      And then you’ll be right back where you are, defending a rapist.

                    15. I don’t know that Bill Clinton is a rapist. I get “believe the accusers,” but things are muddied in his case by the fact that his only credible accuser recanted and then unrecanted, and that this was all a very public partisan witch hunt. Maybe he did rape women. If so, I condemn. Obviously. Happy?

                    16. “Happy?”

                      That you’re still defending a rapist? No it’s disgusting.

                    17. Who’s a rapist? Cite the evidence please.

                    18. Trump according to you.

                2. “cynical partisan asshole reasons.”

                  That’s precious.

                  1. I am a proud and admitted partisan. You all pretend to be libertarians. Yet all I get is schlocky horseshit from sleazy rightwing blogs regurgitated by unthinking defenders of the worst political party in the civilized world.

                    1. Is that really what you’re going to call my clear, open denunciation of Trump, and the call for his investigation/prosecution?

                      And you say others argue in bad faith.

                    2. Slow clap for the brave stance of denouncing the worst human being in America who happens to be the president. Still don’t know what you want from me. I’m not defending any raping. I also have no ability to do anything about Bill Clinton. You can only be obsessing about him right now because you have partisan ends in mind. I’m not dumb enough to play that game.

                    3. “I’m not defending any raping.”

                      Yes you are.

                      ” I also have no ability to do anything about Bill Clinton”

                      You can denounce him for his admitted sexual assaults. Like I did Trump. Just now. Repeatedly.

                      After you lied about no one doing it. Even though I just had. But you lied anyway.

                      How can we discuss anything with a lying rape apologist like you?

                    4. I denounce him for any sexual assaults. I just don’t know for sure that he committed any, because the only sources for that claim are freakish partisan assholes.

                    5. “I just don’t know for sure that he committed any,”

                      Apart from the one’s he admitted.

                    6. When did Bill Clinton admit to rape?

                    7. The same time Trump did.

                    8. So you’re lying about Bill Clinton admitting to rape?

                    9. Are you lying about Trump comitting rape? I’m applying your standards.

                    10. So who did Trump rape Tony? Who are these women? Name them.

                    11. I don’t pretend to be anything. And is “schlocky horseshit” the latest Maddow or Soros approved epithet?

                    12. I guess “schlocky horseshit” is the new “cousinfucker horseshit”.

        3. Trump is actively opposed by his own party.

        4. You don’t get to make up when an argument has no credibility. Senate Republicans, including the majority leader, have piled on Moore asking him to step aside, even knowing they’re liable to lose a senate seat to the Dems, so you just spewing pure bullshit on that issue.

  15. Politicians are cynical. Now there is a news story that has not been covered before.

  16. I never thought we would get to relive the Victorian Era. Yet here we are. All that’s missing are corsets and bonnets.

    1. So saying you shouldn’t drop your pants and ask unwilling women to kiss your dick is Victorian era ethics? That was like totally okay the 20s or 50s or any time that didn’t have slavery?

      1. Well it’s not quite as innocent as forcibly finger fucking a 14 year old.

        1. Sure Tony, except that no one in politics now is guilty of that. But whatever works for you.

        2. I am sorry Tony. You were talking about Bob Menendez. Yeah, he needs to go but won’t because Democrats never hold anyone accountable for anything. Did the people who said under oath Menendez raped underage hookers lie? You are so concerned about Moore, but no one has said anything about him under oath. Menendez is accused under oath of raping Epstein’s underage sex slaves. And you don’t give a flying fuck about that. You never say a word about it and never will. Why? Because you don’t fucking care. You just pretend to care when it suits you.

          1. “The allegations were made in right-wing media during the run-up to Menendez’s 2012 re-election. They were investigated but never corroborated by the FBI. And one of the purported prostitutes later recanted her claim.”

            It was the prosecutors in the Menendez case that wanted references to underage hookers redacted from the case. Because they weren’t credible and only served to highlight the role of slanderous rightwing blogs. You’re so fucking stupid it hurts.

            I know that you don’t watch FOX News. Now I realize that’s because FOX News is too middle-of-the-road for you. Your brain has been pickled by rightwing blogs and papers and you’ve been made stupid by them. Seek the help you need.

            1. Those legations were made under oath at Menendez’s trial. And Menendez is known to have visited the island multiple times. But he didn’t partake in the sex slaves held there. A sitting Senator admits going to a billionaire’s private island were he had underage sex slaves and that is just okay. It is a matter of public record that both Menendez and Bill Clinton visited that island and Epstein is in federal prison for what went on there.

              But it is all just a right wing smear. Thanks for showing a perfect example of exactly what we are talking about. You are just disgusting.

            2. Sounds an awful lot like the Steele dossier. But that’s compelling evidence, right?

              1. Shut the fuck up. I’m here to talk to libertarians, not slavish Hannity bootlickers.

                1. Thinking is hard, isn’t it? The logic anf consistency stuff really gets in the way of feeling your way through life.

                2. Did Hannity put Epstein in prison for having an island filled with underage hookers held there against their will? Did he Tony? Did Hannity force Bill Clinton and Menedez to visit said island?

                3. “I’m here to talk to libertarians.”
                  I doubt that.

              2. It is more than a dossier that got Epstein put in prison. A senator was close friends with and visited an island owned by a billionaire where said billionaire kept underage sex slaves. And that is no big deal because the Senator assures us he didn’t have sex with the sex slaves or know they were there and no one can prove he did. That is what the left is saying about the Menendez

                1. Trump admitted to raping people and lusting after his daughter and looking at naked little girls and committing obstruction of justice and treason. On camera.

                  1. And you want Trump out of office Tony. Why don’t you want Menendez out of office other than because he is a Democrat? Thanks again for proving our point. The more you scream about Trump when someone brings up Menendez the more you prove our point that your a partisan moron who will defend anything your side does including holding young girls as sex slaves.

                    1. I don’t want Trump out of office. I do want Menendez out of office. Stop trying to read my mind. It rarely works out.

                    2. And of course, you’ll lie.

                    3. Now that’s some good faith debate right there. Every time I say something inconvenient for John’s mindless hypocritical partisan blather, I’m a liar.

            3. Tony, you botch about Fox News, yet are a die hard consumer of the pablum puked up by Media Matters, MSNBC, and probably the NAMBLA newsletter.

    2. War on Women!!
      Wait, what?

  17. There’s definitely a lot of cynics who will shamelessly adapt their stances as needed. But there’s also a major component of revolutionaries who will gleefully guillotine their own if they think it advances the cause. And of course it will.

    1. It took about 250 years but we’ve finally morphed into the French revolution. Now if we can just learn to obey our feudal lords woke visionaries, then we can finally enter the ninth twenty-first century.

      1. I hope people finally wake up and accept the reality that the progressives will iultimately only be stopped with widespread use of force.

  18. Liberals and progresives are only now concerned about Bill Clinton’s womanizing because it’s finally clear to them that he’s no longer in power, and his wife will never be in power. In short, they no longer feel obligation to throw their morals and ethics under the partisan bus.

    Maybe when Democrats get back in power the Republicans will finally admit that Roy Moore is at truly creepy dude.

    1. Moore should be elected to the Senate so the ethics committee can investigate these allegations. That’s the only way to handle misbehavior, isn’t it?

      1. Or he could lose the election.

        1. Like Franken? Let me guess, the picture of him fondling an unconscious woman is a koch/hannity/drudge/lex luthor conspiracy. I mean it’s just an accusation and he said he’s sorry and wants an investigation into his actions. Because it jist impossible for him to resign until it’s conclusively proven.

          1. You only want him to resign because he has a (D) after his name, which is why I’m not going to indulge your stupid games.

            1. I want him to resign because he said that people who commit sexual assault shouldn’t be in the Senate–and there he is, on film, committing sexual assault.

              He said this is what should happen.

              1. But mostly because he’s a Democrat.

                1. Tony: “stop trying to read my mind… only I can read people’s minds.”

                2. But Tony doesn’t want Franken to resign, BECAUSE he has a D after his name.

    2. Everyone’s a hypocrite. When Clinton was fucking women left right and centre I don’t recall women sports teams freaking out like they do now with Trump.

  19. Politics is proof of Darwin’s theory of natural selection…..the honest and moral ones can’t win when they’re up against criminals and sociopaths who pay no attention to the rules.

  20. All of this is why Trumps attitude and treatment of women didn’t have as profound effect as it normally would’ve. Most people, despite Democrats and the media pretending otherwise, remembered who Hillary Clinton was when her husband was the one being accused. And she wasn’t interested in believing anyone at that time.

    1. His time is coming. And it’s not Hillary Clinton’s fault. (Neither were Bill’s dalliances.)

      Do you often throw your spouse under the bus as soon as one of your mortal enemies sends it barrelling after her?

      1. I usually try slandering anyone who goes after my spouse. You know, just for the sake of principal.

        1. I mean, principle.

          Whoops.

      2. Hillary physically abused Bill regularly, so I doubt they were very much in love. It’s a political marriage at this point. They would’ve divorced long ago if they didn’t think it would hurt their brand. Not really analogous to normal married people. Then again, maybe it is. If I were married my spouse would probably be the first person I’d want to throw under the bus.

  21. Attacks on Clinton, she later explained, were an “insidious use of sexual harassment laws to bring down a president for his pro-female politics.”
    OK, so the laws were meant only to be used on the basis of political views feminists dislike and not on the basis of ones behavior?

    1. Newt Gingrich and company were not acting on behalf of feminism.

      1. Know what the irony of all this is Tony? All your pointless ‘I know you are but wham I’ shtick?

        When the pros come for you threatening your liberty for whatever reason, if there’s one group of people that would go to bat for you it’s the people here.

        1. progs

        2. And as a libertarian on much of the shit progressives are trying to do, I will work to find like-mindedness in our movement and work so that it can carry on trying to improve the world.

          You guys, however, will be sitting here talking about utopia until the end of time.

          1. I believe In you, Tony.

            Your words really do influence our destinies.

            Keep fighting the good fight!

    2. Alls fair in love and war and politics.

      That’s why Nixon was so awesome, really.

  22. If we all were less tribal, maybe D’s & R’s would be less relevant.
    Voters can be such suckers.

  23. The article cites one or two persons with a certain opinion, takes a class of people that these one or two persons belong to, and assumes others of that class universally hold that opinion. Such is a very bogus form of argument.

  24. Wow, you found a case of hypocrisy! So impressive. Rush out and write a story.

    Come on Reason, this is about as newsworthy as Hannity defending Trump on a regular basis for the same things he aggressively goes after Obama/Clinton. It’s how politics are done today.

    You want an interesting story? Analyze the hypocrisy industry. Let’s look how politicians and pundits love to use the hypocrisy argument against others abut not themselves. How about the law of hypocrisy. If you are pointing out hypocrisy in your opponents, chances are, you are practicing a mirror image form of hypocrisy. So yeah, Dems are guilty. But what about all those conservatives who fail to give credit to feminists who made it possible to say that what Clinton did was wrong? If they had their way Clinton would have gotten a slap on the back and laugh with the guys in a smoke filled bar.

    1. Reason is a thinly veiled front for Republican mouthpieces. Pretends to be libertarian, occasionally dishes up some principles, and that too which would paint one side in the worst light.

  25. Whereas, Republicans continued disregard for the sexual predators in their ranks is pretty much in character.

    Federalist taint Harsanyi is here to remind everyone of that

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.