The first sentence in this Mitt Romney article is the very definition of irony:
Failed 2012 U.S. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said on Sunday he expects Hillary Clinton to win or lose the White House on her record, not that of her husband, former Democratic President Bill Clinton and his sexual indiscretions.
“Failed Presidential nominee.” Indeed. Mitt Romney is a really nice guy and that’s why he lost.
John McCain declared Obama’s relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright “off limits.”
McCain is also known as a “Failed U.S. Republican presidential nominee.”
Mitt says Monica is off limits. McCain said Wright was off limits. Both lost.
Anyone notice a pattern here? Why anyone would want to take Presidential campaign advice from these two is beyond me. What they know is how to lose.
In 2014 male CEO’s can rejoice. Liberals, taking a clue from Hillary Clinton, have redefined the meaning of sexual harassment. As the candidacy of Hillary Clinton slowly begins to materialize the left is desperate to fend off the specter of Bill’s sexual escapades so they can utilize the one weapon they have in the Hillary quiver, i.e. the “War on Women.” But for now, 20 year old female interns are free game.
The 2008 and 2012 Presidential campaigns were all about exploiting race. The country elected a novelty President with zero legislative footprint and no accomplishments other than leaving behind the wreckage known as Parc Grove but he did claim to want to “fundamentally” change the country. Voters were dunned into voting for Obama simply to prove they weren’t guilty of racism and any opposition to Obama was always motivated by racism.
This time democrats might offer up another novelty Presidential candidate- a woman- and the campaign will be about and only about the war on women. Any and all criticisms of Hillary will be because “You hate women.”
Rand Paul has cagily been reminding us of the fact that Bill Clinton is a sexual predator. That DOES matter now, because it demonstrates just how painfully hypocritical democrats are with regard to the treatment of women. Clinton is a sexual predator and Hillary was his enabler.
Hillary called Monica Lewinsky a “narcissistic loon.” Hillary painted Bill as the victim:
When Clinton finally admitted to the relationship after repeated denials, Hillary Clinton defended her husband in a phone call with Blair. She said her husband had made a mistake by fooling around with the “narcissistic loony toon” Lewinsky, but was driven to it in part by his political adversaries, the loneliness of the presidency, and her own failures as a wife.
She told Blair that the affair did not include sex “within any real meaning” of the term and noted President Clinton “tried to manage” Monica after they broke up but things spiraled “beyond control.”
Bill Clinton, the most powerful man on Earth, was the powerless victim, unable to control himself. Twenty two year old Monica Lewinsky was the evil predator. She was the guilty one.
Hillary had an opinion of all sexual harassment accusers at the time. They were “whiney women.”
(And Hillary, despite anything she might say now, is all for single payer.)
And pay close attention to this nugget:
Hillary Clinton told Blair she had received “a letter from a psychologist who does family therapy and sexual infidelity problems,” who told the Yale Law School graduate, “most men with fidelity problems [were] raised by two women and felt conflicted between them.”
I’d like Hillary to flesh that one out in more detail.
On one hand, Hillary doesn’t want the blame,
“[Hillary] is not trying to excuse [Bill Clinton]; it was a huge personal lapse. And she is not taking responsibility for it,” Blair wrote.
but on the other hand, she blamed herself:
She said her husband had made a mistake by fooling around with the “narcissistic loony toon” Lewinsky, but was driven to it in part by his political adversaries, the loneliness of the presidency, and her own failures as a wife.
That’s about right.
This is all new information discovered by Alana Goodman. It is NOT old news.
Monica wasn’t the only awful woman in the Clinton world. There was Paula Jones, whom James Carville described as “trailer park trash.” As long as the accused was a democrat, Evan Thomas called Jones “just some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer parks.”
Women who had been accosted by Clinton and then talked were known as “Bimbos.” As recently as 2008 friends of the Clintons were fearful of more “bimbo eruptions.”
None of these wisps of smoke have produced a public fire. But four former Clinton aides told me that, about 18 months ago, one of the president’s former assistants, who still advises him on political matters, had heard so many complaints about such reports from Clinton supporters around the country that he felt compelled to try to conduct what one of these aides called an “intervention,” because, the aide believed, “Clinton was apparently seeing a lot of women on the road.” The would-be intercessor was rebuffed by people around Clinton before ever getting an audience with the former president, and another aide told me that the effort was not well received by either Bill or Hillary Clinton and that some Hillarylanders, in particular, were in denial about the continuing political risks that Bill’s behavior might pose.
Kathleen Willey has said that Hillary Clinton “is the war on women” and rightly denounces women’s groups who sided with Clinton.
And Willey also lashed into feminist organizations who never seem interested in the harassment against her by the Clintons.
“All of these women’s groups, they’re all pro-Hillary, they need to … talk to someone like me and listen here, what Hillary Clinton has done to me and many, many, many other women. They are so hypocritical, it’s unbelievable. And this is the woman that wants to be president.”
Barack Obama’s abuse of the IRS was a lesson learned from the Clinton’s. They had all the Clinton accusers audited as well as a whole slew of other enemies:
The National Rifle Association, The Heritage Foundation, The National Review, The American Spectator, Freedom Alliance, National Center for Public Policy Research, American Policy Center, American Cause, Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for Honest Government, Progress and Freedom Foundation, Concerned Women for America and the San Diego Chapter of Christian Coalition.
Monica Lewinsky is relevant right now. She matters if Hillary runs for the Presidency because how women were treated by Hillary and Bill during his Presidency is the dagger to the heart of the plan to attack the GOP. It’s certainly fair game. After all, it was Hillary who said
“We are the President”
Liberals are already playing the “That’s ancient history” card. Those would be the same FOS liberals who ridiculed Mitt Romney for giving a classmate a haircut in 1965.
Now liberals dismiss the sexual escapades of Bill Clinton only because their candidate would suffer were they to eschew hypocrisy. Presidents and CEO’s are free to have sexual relations with unpaid twenty year old interns and call themselves the victims. Hillary has landed a haymaker on feminism.
democrats have warned against raising Monica as an issue, but since when is it a good idea for the GOP to take democrat advice on how to run a Presidential campaign?
UPDATE
Glenn Loury asks: How does Bill Clinton “get to go around and be an honorable defender of the Democratic Party line, which is a pro-woman line…”
“… when he took advantage of an intern in his office? And, you know, I’m not a pro-impeach-Bill-Clinton guy and whatnot, but I kind of find it hard to see that Rand Paul doesn’t have a point there, okay? How is it that the press and everybody else can just forget about the exploitation of women when they’re actually exploited and yet are prepared to level their howitzers of criticism on any Republican who might say something that could be construed as anti-woman, who hasn’t been messing around with the interns under his charge?”
Ann Althouse. Video at the link
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Don’t worry, the Republican establishment will criticize anyone who brings it up. Maybe everyone in DC is doin.g it also
Yes, Romney and McCain were failed 2012 U.S. Republican presidential nominees, yet Hilary was a failed 2012 Democratic candidate who couldn’t beat a virtually unknown (and unvetted,) primary competitor, whom few knew anything about.
@jr: I’m for making it a primary issue.
You guys are truly desperate. Truly truly desperate. Comically desperate.
I find it rather amusing that this bit the GOP hard in the ass once and here they are again, just sticking that ass right back into the lion’s mouth for more.
Republicans should probably consider the possibility that women voters might not feel sympathy toward a party that attacks a female candidate for the misbehavior of her husband. But please, do go right ahead. Joe Biden will certainly win points by defending her.
@Ronald J. Ward: Wonder if the lefties would feel the same way if G Bush had an affair with a 20 year old intern? and lied about it under oath. I’ll bet they wouldn’t even mention it. Right?
@Greg:
Actually they’re attacking her for saying it was the intern’s fault.
Obama won because of race? If that were true, wouldn’t Jesse Jackson have become President years ago?
If Republican candidates think Monica Lewinsky is relevant, Hillary will win in a landslide.
@Gary Miller:
If Dimocrats candidates don’t think Monica Lewinsky is relevant, Hillary will lose in a landslide.
@Redteam, #7:
Ms. Lewinsky probably knew exactly what she was doing, although I doubt if she fully understood there were people who would use her as a pawn in an effort to bring down a presidency—an effort that failed miserably, by the way, while distracting the nation from a growing threat.
There are some questions that simply aren’t proper to put to a president under oath, because they have nothing to do with the nation’s security and are private matters that are nobody else’s damn business. I’m not sure whether I was more embarrassed by Bill Clinton, or by the nitwits who hung the dirty laundry out in public view for the entire world to see. Plus the stink of hypocrisy was enough to send people searching for spare clothespins for their noses. Gingrich, known to be an adulterer, apparently missed the lesson about casting the first stone. Nor, I suspect, was he the only one.
I don’t have the least bit of curiosity about GWB’s sexual behavior, nor did I when he was president. It’s no one else’s business. I’m offended by people who are preoccupied with such things and make public issues out of what I have no desire to hear about.
@Greg:
You sure missed the meaning of the whole deal. It’s not Ms Lewinsky’s intentions or actions that are at question. It’s a person that was supposed to be a mature individual, that was married and should have known better. Then, it’s mrs Clinton saying it was Monica’s fault because she should have know Clinton was a philanderer and didn’t have any morals. It doesn’t matter if it was proper to ask him that question or not, but when he swore under oath to tell the truth, he should have known there was a liability if he told a lie. He thought he could BS his way through it.
Clinton is known to have raped several women, he should have served more years in prison than in the White House, but Dims will overlook any criminal activity on the part of Dims.
Senator Paul and other Republicans are right to raise Hillary Clinton’s role in the scandals of the Bill Clinton presidency.
Think of it as a means to counter Democratic charges that the GOP has a “war on women.”
After all republicans will be running ads showing Hillary saying, ”What difference, at this point, does it make?”
That little excuse of hers will fit many points in her past.
Remember, Hillary used military men who were on security detail at the White House for her luggage carriers.
Hillary claimed she landed under fire when she went to visit a foreign land.
Hillary claimed all those women were ”bimbos.”
Remember there will be surrogates doing our candidate’s dirty work for him while he takes the high road, a la GWBush who, when asked about Bill’s bimbo issues, simply said, “I will restore dignity and honor to the White House.”
There’s no way Hillary can ever utter those words.
She really ought to return the WH china servings and all those letter “W.”
Lest we’ve forgotten how the Clinton’s left the WH…..
@Gary Miller:
Jesse was known as a race hustler and a shakedown artist already. Obama lied his way through the Presidential primary and race. I know liberals don’t remember squat, but back then he was against the use of signing statements, said marriage was between a man and a woman, was against the personal mandate and railed against Bush’s use of Executive Orders.
He ran as more of a moderate but many of us knew better and we were right. Mostly we knew he was a liar.
@Greg:
What is your argument? That women are stupid? Do women also agree that the IRS should be used against women with whom their husbands have affairs? Do they agree with berating women for telling the truth? Do they agree that calling women “bimbos” and “trailer park trash” is the proper manner in which to handle affairs?
Do women agree that suggesting a woman really didn’t have her own baby is acceptable?
@Ronald J. Ward:
If they open the bottle and loose the “war on women” genie this is all fair game. The way the Clintons treated women was abominable.
@DrJohn: I’m not saying it isn’t necessarily fair game but rather find it to be a potentially risky way of playing the hand.
It didn’t go over before with an actual sitting president so why or how you feel it will work by somehow blaming Hillary is beyond me. So, if a husband cheats on his wife, said wife is now disqualified for career advancements??????????
But by all means, proceed.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Where did I or Rand Paul blame Hillary for what her husband did? In the post I noted where Hillary both did and did not blame herself.
what was that obama said about bringing a gun to a knife fight? Well the Republicans need to do this. America is ripe for a return to good American values, an economic up turn, and a president (SIC) that loves this country and doesn’t just pretend . I revise my last statement. The current president no longer pretends to hide his loathing of the United States of America.
I see the true believers are circling the wagons already around the divinely anointed successor to the One.
If the know-it-all believers did not have double standards, they would have no standards at all (I borrowed that; it has often been stated).
In many previous electoral campaigns (before Zero) the past positions and actions of candidates were said to be important. The One ran a campaign which was past-free; no inquiry was perimtted into previous associations, previous positions, or previous expressed opinions. The school records were sealed. The work at Harvard Law Journal was hidden. If you hide something, it is because you have something to hide.
So now the evil canard is “don’t attack Hillary.” Why not? She is a disciple of Alinsky and will surely use his techniques to attack anyone who runs against her. Cannot we use her techniques against her first?
They don’t call Republicans the “party of stupid” without reason!
@enchanted:
You betcha. Punch back twice as hard.
@drjohn: Of course you didn’t.
Mitt Romney never accused Obama of being born in Kenya when he made his joke about how no one ever ask him for his papers. Paul Ryan never said he volunteers as a dish washer at soup kitchens. George W. Bush never said Iraq attacked us on 9/11.
You’re simply promoting this argument for the sole purpose of advancing an equal playing field for women, right?
@Ronald J. Ward:
Pretty gentle considering Obama called Romney a murderer, liar, tax cheat and felon.
As you correctly note, I did not blame Hillary for her husband’s adultery. She blamed herself. I do however, strongly condemn the Clintons for how they treated women. Filner could have taken a lesson and called all his accusers “narcissistic loons.”
@DrJohn:
Obama called Romney a murderer, liar, tax cheat and felon??????
Aside from the expected “bu, bu, but OBAMAAAAAA-WAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!”, was that before or after Obama blotched the Katrina recovery or before or after he crashed the economy in 2008?
” I do however, strongly condemn the Clintons for how they treated women.”
Of course you do. And if you couldn’t somehow fabricate that reason you’d simply fabricate another. Nothing new there.
@Ronald J. Ward:
I have been very consistent about the Clintons’ abuse of women.
@Ronald J. Ward:
That’s actually funny coming from someone who blames Walts cracy dog for all the problems. Either him or trolls.
@DrJohn: I’m not questioning your persistence. You’ve been quite consistent on the Benghazi hype as well. And if you can scrape up another iota of fiction to manipulate into ammo for your hate fest I’m sure you’d persistently pursue that as well.
Aren’t you guys still selling Obamacare as a “job killer” based on the CBO report?
@Ronald J. Ward:
not sure what a ‘still guys’ is, maybe related to Walt’s dog Cracy, at any rate no one has to sell it as a job killer, it does quite well all by itself. Tho it’s not ‘realllllllly killing jobs, it’s just freeing up a bunch of people so they can go into early retirement. At least I think that’s the Dims swan song.
@Redteam: Treasury officials said Monday that businesses will be told to “certify” that they are not shedding full-time workers simply to avoid the ObamaCare mandate. Officials said employers will be told to sign a “self-attestation” on their tax forms affirming this, under penalty of perjury.
See?
You cannot have lost ANY jobs due to ObamaCare!
These business owners said so!
Think this is going to twist reality?
I don’t.
Obama’s just creating a bigger pool of liars.
@Nanny G:
I think that’s humorous. Of course it can be signed anyway anyone chooses because there is no law that requires them to do so and no penalty because there is no law that covers it.
@Ronald J. Ward:
OK. let’s see….
So we can presume that you, Ron, are all in favor of dehumanizing women and weaponizing the government in order to punish those who rightly accuse someone in it.
And you are in favor of CEO’s cigarolating 18 year old female interns in the workplace as long as it’s consensual.
Don’t have any kids, do you Ron? Married?
And now you feel the need to change the subject.
It is a fact that the Clinton’s used the IRS to punish women accusers. It is also a fact the Clinton’s paid Paula Jones $800,000 for doing her wrong.
You’re not denying that now, are ya?
What all this all shows is that Hillary was willing to ignore and accept her Bill’s womanizing and sexual harassment of women, (and even his using the IRS to go after his victims,) in return for becoming First Lady and furthering her own political career. It also displays the hypocrisy of Democrats, who are fine with vilifying their political opponents for their sexual peccadilloes and turning them into election issues, while claiming that it isn’t important or relevant when it is done by one of their anointed chosen ones.
Having said that, I don’t think that Hillary’s derogatory treatment of Bill’s victims is that strong of a issue to help very much in campaigning against her, other than mentioning the Democratic party’s hypocrisy in accusing it’s own for their own “war against women”.
The last I saw poll I saw on the subject, Bill Clinton had a 69 percent favorable rating. That was in 2012.
@Greg:
Even if the 2012 poll us accurate, so what? Bill can’t run for President again.
@drjohn:
I have no control over what you presume and what you don’t or how you arrive at your presumptions. Somewhere in the discussion you deduce that I favor sexual misconduct between CEOs and young female interns, actually validating my claim of you simply create your own conspiracy theories out of thin air. And I’m the one you claim that has a need to change the subject?? And this comes after your evasive rant of Obama calling Romney a murderer, liar, tax cheat and felon.
A settlement (and I’m thinking it was $850K) isn’t a factual admission of wrong doing.
Regardless, my original point was that this is likely a desperate losing battle for the GOP and isn’t likely to go well with women or the general electorate. That led us into my point that your arguments have to be taken with a few pounds of salt as you seem to rely on radical unhinged sources (Heritage polling on ACA, loaded polling questions, etc) which I have identified on numerous occasions.
But as we see in your last comment, you just make up stupid shit.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Everybody coughs up $800,000 for nothing. LOL
@Ditto, #33:
You’d never guess it, from the amount of attention he still gets from his detractors.
@Greg:
The subject of this FA article is his wife Hillary and her political aspirations, of which her opposition is free to criticize. Your poll is irrelevant to that discussion.
@Ronald J. Ward:
deduction or not, your words say you condone it and that you condone Hillary for saying it was the Bimbo’s fault, tho I think she might have meant Bill when she said Bimbo. I think the fact that Shrillary said that she didn’t have sex with Bill in any real sense is very telling. So I guess she includes her sexual liaisons with women as being ‘not real sex’ either. But, At this point, what difference does it make?
It’s funny to me that Dims think it’s okay to be anti-woman if Hillary is the cause.
@Ronald J. Ward:
You’re had ample opportunity to denounce them but all you’ve done is defend the actions of the Clintons.
A related topic might be why republicans seem compelled to engage in self-defeating behavior. An oblique attack Hillary Clinton by referencing her husband’s infidelity will undoubtedly cost them critical support among women voters, while gaining them nothing. Or look at Greg Abbott, as he prepares to destroy his lead in the Texas governor’s race by refusing to distance himself from a high-profile nutcase like Ted Nugent. The results seem predictable. He will lose many mainstream Texas voters, while gaining additional support from no one. Why they never seem to learn is a total mystery.
@Greg:
Greg
Can you point out where I or anyone else here were attacking Hillary for Bill’s adultery? I gave Ron more than one opportunity and he failed spectacularly.
@Greg:
Anyone that doesn’t distance themselves from Wendy Davis is refusing to distance themselves from a high profile nutcase. do you see that as ‘winning strategy’?
@Greg:
But thank you, Greg. You have provided us with knowledge of what liberals are going to do when this is brought up. They will attempt mightily to warp what is being stated into something else. I have little doubt that many low information democrat voters will be as easily distracted as was Doug in “Up.”
@drjohn: There you go again making up silly shit again. Where or how have I defended the Clinton? By not joining in on your distraction in which I’m somehow accountable to bash them?
My argument is that you’re mudslinging strategy is rather tried and failed.
For what it’s worth, I’m really not a Hillary fan as I think she’s too cozy with Wall Street. That’s the last thing we need in this day and age. I’d much rather see a Biden/Warren or vise versa ticket.
But don’t get me wrong. I’d vote Hillary hands down over any republican.
@Ronald J, Ward:
Vote Plugs and Fauxcahontas. We have stupidity and lying covered in one team.
Yeah, that should be a winning ticket.
@Ronald J, Ward:
Of course you would. You would vote for any Marxist over a Constitutionalist.
@Greg:
And you’re proud of the achievements of a multiple rapist? Why?
@Ronald J, Ward:
So would all republicans, biden would poll worse than Dan quayle.
@retire05:
Is that what they have on their signs, sounds about right.
@Ronald J. Ward: actually tbagee. comedy is saying losing your job is a good thing so you can take up the saxamaphone