Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Why Is Rand Paul Talking About Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky?

Why Is Rand Paul Talking About Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky?

It’s the preemptive War on the War on Women

The title of this post is the question Peter Beinart asks at The Atlantic, with the following sub-title (in italics):

There isn’t much political logic to dredging the old scandal up—except as a move to shore up his credibility with social conservatives skeptical of libertarianism.

…..But perhaps most puzzling has been the tack taken by Rand Paul, who in interview after interview after interview has accused Democrats of “hypocrisy” for claiming to support women’s rights while giving Bill Clinton a pass for his “predatory” behavior towards Monica Lewinsky….

So why the anti-Clinton offensive? Because Paul isn’t speaking to most Americans—he’s speaking to the Christian right. Paul is presumably well aware that while economic conservatives loved his father, social conservatives did not.

Wrong.

Rand Paul is talking about Bill, Monica and also Hillary because it matters for the following reasons, all of which pertain to Hillary’s presumptive nomination:

  • Democratic cheerleader and hero Bill Clinton was someone who abused his power over women, particularly young, vulnerable women.
  • Bill Clinton’s wife was part of the demonization of the women Bill Clinton abused.
  • The War on Women, sure to be a campaign focus, is hypocritical when expressed by Bill and Hillary Clinton.

It matters.  Rand Paul is brilliant to talk about it.  The former Emperor and the presumptive Empress have no clothes when it comes to the War on Women.

But you can’t attack the presumptive Empress, because she’s a woman.

So Bubba and Monica, and Paula, and the other women, are issues again.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

What a joy to hear a Republican politician go on the offensive with the truth. Ron Paul and Ted Cruz are unafraid and get airtime. They are huge assets.

    I thought there was not too much hay to be cut on Monica and Bill till I saw the released “Hillary Archive” where she dismisses female on male oral sex as not really sex.

    I have a feeling most husbands could not use that excuse with their wives.

      Another Voice in reply to EBL. | February 10, 2014 at 11:10 pm

      Which may explain the proliferation of Middle School kids who explain away that having oral sex is not really a sex act but more like kissing a really good friend. Thanks Bill. Thanks Hillary. For making that a distinction on morality.

        Juba Doobai! in reply to Another Voice. | February 10, 2014 at 11:47 pm

        The spread of STD’s amongst the young who uphold this ethos gives the lie to it. If oral sex is not sex then why do so many get STD’s from it?

The problem for Paul and the GOP in general is the media is already starting to prove they will not give an INCH of leeway on the hypocrisy argument. Using the Clinton example alone will not work because of the media offset. Some other voices need to come out with the near endless examples of hypocrisy. Just one example: Plaster interviews, ads, and airwaves with the administration pay discrepancies, as a start.

The Democrat party has run on a platform that the right is engaged on a “war on women” quite successfully, yet the second most notable Democrat leader is a serial sexual predator and likely rapist.

The question is why more Republicans aren’t pointing this out, not why one of the few with a spine is.

    Phillep Harding in reply to 18-1. | February 10, 2014 at 1:03 pm

    Bush II should never play poker. Neither should Bill Clinton. I keep recalling how Bush acted like he had been kicked in the crotch after that “quiet and private talk” between him and Clinton right after the election, and how Clinton was strutting like a rooster.

    What is in Clinton’s files? Hillary, at least, has them on hand, how much is “stale dated”, if there is such a thing when it comes to dirt on Republicans.

Oh, and it is interesting to see the modern Democrat response.

The argument seems to be that everyone except Lewinsky is lying, and that is only because of the infamous blue dress.

It would be interesting to make an ad that splices Democrats saying women never lie about sexual harrassment [a very common talking point] with them also saying that all of Bill Clinton’s victims are lying.

    JoAnne in reply to 18-1. | February 10, 2014 at 12:39 pm

    Brilliant! I’m going to borrow that retort if you don’t mind!

      Feel free. 🙂

      Since the left changes positions so often it is useful to remind the LIVs that there is no consistency there.

    Estragon in reply to 18-1. | February 10, 2014 at 4:41 pm

    Remember, Clinton’s toadies from Podesta and Lanny Davis to Begala to his media pals were insisting Monica was nothing but an obsessed crazy stalker slut with a wild imagination until the DNA came back.

    If Linda Tripp had not convinced Monica to save the dress just in case, that would still be the Democrats’ mantra today.

IIRC, Bill’s “predatory” behavior with Monica started when she asked him if he’d like to see her thong.

    Ragspierre in reply to creeper. | February 10, 2014 at 12:42 pm

    Please…!!!

    You can’t seriously imagine that those were the first words/messages between these two people! That there was no precursory flirting that led to that.

    A female intern…just months older than his own daughter…should have been immediately removed from the White House IF Ball-less Bill was not a whore-dog.

    JoAnne in reply to creeper. | February 10, 2014 at 12:42 pm

    He was President of the United States. She was a 20 y/o intern. Please. Give it a rest. You sound like you think men are little more than what resides in their drawers. Some of us happen to think men are more than that, especially the ones we elect to sit in the Oval Office.

    Actually, do we know that Monica started off flirting with Bill? I think it was Bill that made the claim, but initially his flunkies claimed that she was a lying stalker so you can’t really trust what he says.

    More to the point, Bill sexually harassed/assaulted a number of women outside of Ms Lewinsky – and this is what we should be concerned about.

    Phillep Harding in reply to creeper. | February 10, 2014 at 1:05 pm

    The older is always expected to show better sense. What was he? 45?

It is important we cover Paul’s 6 when the GOPe joins in the attacks.

When McCain comes out with his sniveling, “My friends, we need a constructive…” schtick we need to smack that bastard down hard.

Members of the gentry-GOP media (Will, Krauthammer, OReilly, Rubin, Rove) that attempt to pile on need to be humiliated like the girly-men they are.

Do not let the establishment do to our allies what they have done in the past.

Punch back twice as hard.

Let’s win this thing.

Bravo Rand. Put the facts to the lie.

Another scandal, I’d like to see refreshed is Hilliary’s habit of subporning perjury. Here is ablurb from Wiki about the Congressisonal investigation of Waterwater and Hill’s very close confidant Susan Thomases aka the Midnight caller:

In May 1995, the United States Senate, which had come under Republican control after the 1994 midterm elections, convened the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters, under the chairmanship of Senator Alfonse D’Amato.

Thomases was questioned by Senators D’Amato and Faircloth and majority counsel, Michael Chertoff, about telephone calls that she had exchanged with Hillary Clinton, Hillary’s chief of staff Maggie Williams and White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum the morning after the suicide of Vince Foster. After the telephone calls, Nussbaum had removed documents from Vince Foster’s offices before they were searched by the FBI. Thomases testified that the calls were of a personal nature and that she had not discussed the impending search of Foster’s office with Hillary Clinton.[9][10]

In June 1996, the committee published its report, describing Thomases, Williams, Nussbaum and Hubbell as “not candid” and concluding that they had “provided inaccurate and incomplete testimony to the committee in order to conceal Mrs. Clinton’s pivotal role in the decisions surrounding the handling of Mr. Foster’s documents following his death.”[11][12] Thomases had answered “I don’t recall” 184 times during the course of the hearings. Independent counsel Kenneth Starr rejected the committee’s criminal referral against Thomases for possible perjury.[13]

theduchessofkitty | February 10, 2014 at 12:48 pm

“The War on Women, sure to be a campaign focus, is hypocritical when expressed by Bill and Hillary Clinton.”

I’m saying this as a graduate of a women’s college from the Northeast – one that gave just about every vote they could find out of their garbage cans for Bill Clinton.

Back in ’98, when I heard the NOW crowd proudly announcing they would gladly give Ole’ Bill a “[email protected]# J$%” just for keeping abortion legal, I was disgusted. I realized that crowd, and the entire Democrat Party in general, had no scruples as to what or who they were defending in order to get what they wanted.

“The Godfather” couldn’t hold a candle to those people.

If protecting a sexual predator is the way to “keep abortion legal” and defend women’s rights… I want none of that. Count me out!

It was in ’98 when I had moved to TX. Cast my first Republican vote (W for Governor) and never looked back.

Rand’s reminders also serve as a nice rebuke to the establishment media and intellectual elite, who insist on treating Clinton like an ideal president. Even though I’ve thought his father was a bit of a crackpot, I’m starting to look favorably on Rand.

The Professor ignores 2 very basic Natural Laws:

-black people cannot be racist…by their very nature

-Democrats cannot engage in a “war on women”…by their very nature

*Coming Soon -homosexuals are heroes…by their very nature ..will be a close 3rd

Phillep Harding | February 10, 2014 at 1:17 pm

Yeah, well, “Saint Hillary”.

Pointing out how she takes part in the exploitation of young women is about as “sexist” as pointing out the managers of most “houses of ill-reput” are female, aka “Madams”.

I thought Paul was nuts to raise Billy’s old news too. That is, until I watched one of the interviews. Paul came across with an intelligent statement linking Democrats war on women canard to Billy’s payment of $800,000 to Paula Jones to settle her sexual harassment lawsuit against him. Clearly America wouldn’t tolerate Chris Christie as President if he had done that. Nor Rand Paul, so why The Clintons? We know when you get one, you get the other.

War on women?

Again, the same 30 second campaign spot will suffice, lifted from multiple news source coverage:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in DC, on the airport tarmac as the bodies of the Americans killed in Benghazi are off-loaded. Secretary Clinton repeats the lie to the mother of one of the slain defenders that it was all the fault of a spontaneous uprising over an anti-Islamic youtube video. This followed by the evidence that Hillary knew damn well that was a lie told purely for political gain, to avoid the scandal of her’s and Obama’s ineptitude. That followed by a snippet of that mother corroborating the lie and voicing her pain over it on FOX News.

Hillary lies to service mom while standing next to his dead body. Done right, this is powerful.

James Carville recently came on board with Fox News. This is Ailes’ way of getting an inside track on the Clinton operation while hedging his bets on the outcome to boot.

Carville, of the “drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park” quote.

Every time Carville opens his mouth he needs to be made to eat those words.

War on women indeed.

    Ragspierre in reply to ThomasD. | February 10, 2014 at 2:02 pm

    All true, but you have to remember…

    Collectivist can unabashedly wage war on the APPROVED TARGET women. All totally fair game.

    I hardly need to detail all the venomous attacks on any strong conservative woman that are warmly approved of by the Collective. Remember “men in skirts”.

NC Mountain Girl | February 10, 2014 at 1:47 pm

Hillary Clinton has a lot in common with Woody Allen. Many in the press seem to think she is entitled to the presidency as a lifetime achievement award. Forget that her life is almost devoid of achievement except for helping to elevate her lying, cheating husband to the White House. As the New York Time’s Nick Kristof noted recently regarding Allen and his recent lifetime achievement award

The standard to send someone to prison is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but shouldn’t the standard to honor someone be that they are unimpeachably, well, honorable?

Hillary has proven she has no honor. Maybe voters don’t understand the political lies about Benghazi but most understand pretty well a wife lying to protect a sorry sack of dogpoop husband. Hillary enabled her husband’s cheating. She not only stood by his side like exactly the type of old fashioned women she claimed not to be, she actively organized the Bimbo Alert. During the 1992 campaign she sought to silence the many women whom Bill had had sexual liaisons with. Private detectives were hired. Women were coerced, bribed and frightened into silence. It continued through the years in the White House. Paula Jones was trailer trash. Jaunita Broddrick delusional. Lewinsky a stalker. In the case of aspiring actress Elizabeth Ward Gracen, an acting job overseas was offered and then extended for the full duration of the Clinton administration to keep her away from process servers.

These and making a potload of money on the speaking circuit are Hilary’s only accomplishments since she left college. Should they qualify her for the Presidency?

    Well, she was also an INCREDIBLY successful cattle futures trader.

    Stress INCREDIBLE…

    AND she was a prolific rain-maker at Rose…again on the coat-tails of Ball-less Bill in Arkansas’ corrupt environment.

      NC Mountain Girl in reply to Ragspierre. | February 10, 2014 at 3:58 pm

      I worked for a firm that did the tax work for a couple of market makers at the CBOT at the time. The pros all had a good laugh over her “success.

Democrats don’t care about women, they just want to use them to gain power. That’s why they advocate abortion on demand and welfare, to lead women into a life of poverty dependent on the government

    Browndog in reply to imfine. | February 10, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    Yes, now they can use their food stamps to buy the groceries need to stay at home and bake cookies…stay at home to raise their children without worries over a job or healthcare…just the way Hillary always envisioned.

      Phillep Harding in reply to Browndog. | February 10, 2014 at 2:55 pm

      True. The only women who can be “stay at home moms” are the ones on welfare.

      Or who are drawing alimony.

      A married woman staying at home? GASP!!!

      Well, if they are conservatives, anyhow.

Republicans are banking on Clinton fatigue to diminish Hillary’s appeal, but it might not matter in 2016. Attacks on the former first lady won’t work this time, writes Jamelle Bouie, because she’ll be reintroducing herself to voters who barely remember when she and Bill were in the White House.
—The Beastly Day

See, they are counting on young people being idiots, or older ones having defective memories.

We can fix that with an effective education campaign.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to Ragspierre. | February 11, 2014 at 12:00 am

    Actually, Rags, young voters will remember Billary. Because they believed Bill that oral sex is not sex, many young women contracted oral gonorrhea and other STD’s. The shame of that! You think these women will forget? Unlikely. They know going in that Clinton lied and lies.

It’s genius on the part of Rand Paul. Let’s not forget that St William of the Stained Blue Dress is the patron saint of the Democrat party.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR9FHKKbMZo

Very interesting in this context….

I’m still waiting for some enterprising newsperson to ask the obvious questions when some Dem bloviates about ‘job-lock’ and how liberating Obamacare’s effects will be. The questions are these:

Is anyone restricted from deciding to withdraw from gainful employment in order to live on government entitlements?

Who’ll pay the taxes that cover all this if everyone or too many make that decision?

I completely agree. Paul isn’t going to play defense like every RINO we’ve nominated for the past 20 years.

I suppose this worries the GOPe.

It’s Aikido and Paul is a proficient student of the art.

NC Mountain Girl | February 10, 2014 at 4:02 pm

The Democrats are no more keen on Hillary for 2016 than they were in 2008. The problem they have is finding someone who is willing to climb down into the cesspool in order to kill her off for good. Obama didn’t have to because she was worried that if she ticked off too many black voters she would never be able to win a general election. Not even a black candidate will be safe from being slimed in 2016 because this will be her last chance no matter what.

Paul is doing community service.

He’s not going to run this time. He is softening up the ground for attacks on Hillary by reminding the public she is no stranger to lies and scandal.

Good for him. She should not be allowed a de facto sainthood by default.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend