| A Recall AND a Fundraiser? I'm toast. |
|---|
 |
| Let's get this over with FAST. Please contribute! |
Posted on 10/14/2003 8:05:46 AM PDT by LandofLincoln
Mary Jo Melone, a columnist for the left-wing St. Petersburg Times, says it's impossible to compare Bill Clinton the rapist to Arnold Schwarzenegger the groper because "Clinton's women wanted him."
In a hysterical 627-word tantrum denouncing the male and female voters who "elected a serial groper," Melone rages, "Whatever were they thinking?"
As the campaign ended, we heard Schwarzenegger compared to the illustrious and sexually industrious Bill Clinton. You know what followed. If Clinton could be forgiven, why not Schwarzenegger? There was a difference, if not in their conduct than in their choices. Clinton's women wanted him.
Will Melone have the nerve to break her exciting news flash to Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Kimberly Moore, Chrystine Zercher ...
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
And while we are at it why is it that the same discribed man is a sexual addict if he is a Democrat, and a predator if he is a Republican.
For the record ... I am a sexual addict, I just choose to get my fix from ONE sexual dealer (my wife)
Juanita (like all women) WANTED to be raped.
Paula Jones WANTED someone to flash her: men can brighten women's day by doing this on the street.
Kathleen Willey WANTED to be groped while begging for a favor -- it made her feel the deal was tit for tat.
And remember: interns and secretaries WANT you to do all kinds of nasty things to them. Bosses should at least do them the courtesy of propositioning them.
| A Recall AND a Fundraiser? I'm toast. |
|---|
|
| Let's get this over with FAST. Please contribute! |
Truly amazing
Oh, I get it then. It was just adultery and maybe a little improper use of the Oval Office.
I feel SO much better now.
Also, the National Organization for Women line prior to Clinton and Monica was that sexual conduct between a male supervisor and a female subordinate was off-linits, even if the conduct was consensual for two reasons. First, the subordinate would be fearful of losing her job if the relationship ended, putting her in a "slave" relationship (kind of like poor Warren Sapp, I guess), and second, the relationship might make other females in the office think they had to have sexual relations to get ahead in the company.
Ignore every other rat and newsrat argument and remember there are only two unforgivable sins, smoking and being a republican.
If you want on the new list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...
[As i mentioned, the B/C & JD! lists are going to float into and out of whack over the forseeable future, while I try to cobble a rig back together for myself. My apologies for any incovenience or misunderstandings in this time frame. New signups/removals may be flaky in this time-frame as well; please bear with me, and keep in mind you may have to FReepmail me more than once for me to get it done. Thanks again!]
Why on earth did female voters help elect Arnold?
Mary Jo starts to backpedal, but blames it all on the VRWC instead:
Musings on the pastime of politics with blinders (Clinton's women wanted to be molested follow-up)
"German Jews Enjoyed Nazi Labor Camps"
"Jack The Ripper's Victims Loved a Sharp Knife"
"Kurds Really Liked Saddam Hussein"
. Yep.... this woman is seriously distrubed.
This is interesting. Mary Jo's original article was published 10/12. On 10/14, she wrote an article about the reaction to her first article.Here's the original article:
What a world. Voters have elected a serial groper to be governor of California.And here's the article about the reaction to her first article:And women helped put him there.
According to exit polls, 44 percent of Arnold Schwarzenegger's voters were women.
Whatever were they thinking?
That the devil made him do it? That all men are dogs and can't help themselves?
Or that the women who pointed the finger at Schwarzenegger were lying or acting as pawns of the Democrats?
It wasn't just a few women. It began with two women putting their names out there in public and ended up, in less than a week, with about a dozen charging that, between 1975 and 2000, Schwarzenegger grabbed, groped and humiliated them.
I talked to three of the women last week.
Jan Prinzmetal, a fitness expert, said Schwarzenegger grabbed her under her skirt and shoved his hand inside her pantyhose as she was leaving a gym.
Joy Browne, a psychologist and syndicated radio talk show host, remembered him running his hands along her legs while she conducted an hourlong, live interview with him early in her career. He later tried to lure her to his hotel room, she said.
Colette Brooks, who runs an advertising agency, has never forgotten the moment when, as a young CNN intern, she led Schwarzenegger up a stairwell to a network interview. Going up the steps behind her, he remarked, "Nice a- -," and grabbed her backside.
The women all said these incidents happened in the 1980s.
Now it looks as though the women came forward for nothing.
Not even the Los Angeles Times, the supposedly liberal paper that published their allegations, took note in its postelection, get-down-to-business editorial that Schwarzenegger takes office with these clouds still over his head. It was as though the breadth of his victory nullified the claims of his accusers.
"I just wanted voters to know for whom they've voted, but sadly, I don't think they care," Prinzmetal said.
Women, too?
"If he looked like Yasser Arafat, no one would have voted for him," Prinzmetal said.
So what? Schwarzenegger did well among women because he's a hottie?
That's no goofier than seeing him as a miracle man, a radical agent of change in a state desperate for it.
"Many people confuse the power of his celebrity on the big screen . . . with what he could potentially do in real life," Brooks said.
Of course. Whatever he doesn't like in state government, Schwarzenegger will just blow up.
Surely women were as prone as men to believe that those who stepped forward to speak up about Schwarzenegger's conduct were put up to it by the Democrats. Surely that contributed to the vote results last week. But the women I talked to said they came forward on their own, angered by Schwarzenegger's denials.
As the campaign ended, we heard Schwarzenegger compared to the illustrious and sexually industrious Bill Clinton. You know what followed. If Clinton could be forgiven, why not Schwarzenegger?
There was a difference, if not in their conduct than in their choices. Clinton's women wanted him. The women I talked to about Schwarzenegger did not. But that didn't stop him. This was harassment.
This was abuse, and it wasn't just about sex, Browne said: "He was trying to show me who was boss."
I will wonder for a long time why more women didn't believe Schwarzenegger's accusers and side with them. Maybe, when you are desperate for work - and in California, people are desperate for work - you tolerate the boss' bad manners because at least you have a job.
Schwarzenegger is a lucky man. The campaign was short. There was hardly time for the allegations against him to sink in. Women did what women so often do with their men.
They forgave him.
- Mary Jo Melone can be reached at mjmelone@sptimes.com or 226-3402.
My office phone rang and rang Sunday. The voice mail quickly filled up. Same with the e-mail.And, yes, Mary Jo, I do think you're a flaming liberal.I had written a piece raising the question of why women voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor of California, given his alleged history of manhandling women.
I compared him to Bill Clinton. I said in the column that unlike Schwarzenegger's accusers, the women Clinton hit on had welcomed his advances.
When I wrote that, I was thinking of Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers.
The callers and e-mailers had other names in mind. Paula Jones. Kathleen Willey. Juanita Broaddrick. Women who said they didn't want Clinton's advances.
In my haste to make an argument regarding Schwarzenegger - my right as a columnist charged with expressing opinion - I overlooked them.
That said, what I don't get, and never will get, is the other, and most singular, part of the calls.
I'm talking about the tirade of those who believed that my failure to name the other women exposed some leftie bias on my part, and proved beyond a doubt that I am a card-carrying member of the mainstream liberal media conspiracy that tried unsuccessfully to stop Schwarzenegger.
Here's a sample of the tirade.
"You are a reprehensible ideologue."
"You're an obvious hypocrite."
"Face it, Mary Jo. You've been Clintonized."
"I don't know where I would get my daily laughs if it weren't for all you commie-loving lefties."
There was another message in the words.
I could hear it in the voices, the tenor of the sentences. My experience with this column, and these responses, is typical of the way we Americans conduct our politics these days. Balls fly from either hard left or hard right. Too many of us have lost all sense of the middle. We're past the stage of speaking in normal tones. We're into shouting now.
Have you tuned into talk radio lately? Or cable TV? You barely have to push the volume control. It's set so high from the start. And the only stories that get covered seem to be the ones with the highest confrontation quotient. That's the way the programs are set up from the start.
Then there's the Internet, the wonderful Web that was supposed to inform and liberate us. It has become instead a machine capable of spreading a lie like wildfire. People, reading the lie, swallow it whole. Meanwhile, a sea of newspaper ink, more often the product of solid shoe-leather reporting, is dismissed as malevolent fantasy.
This is not only the province of the far right. The right is just better at it.
Those who said women should have soundly criticized Clinton for his conduct, who said that he should be held to the same standard as Schwarzenegger, were correct. I would argue that Clinton has been judged. Nothing speaks louder than impeachment, although that point never satisfies the rabid Clinton haters.
Some of them come across as truly scary.
Newspapers, cable news, talk radio and the Internet are all part of how we talk to each other about how we want to govern ourselves. We are supposed to do it by compromise. But increasingly, the tenor is not about compromise. It's about taking no prisoners.
We shout into the microphone, call names across cyberspace.
No wonder Europeans are increasingly afraid of us.
This isn't democracy. It's cacophony.
You want to call me a liberal? Go ahead, although if you think that what I wrote about Clinton was intended to give him a pass on his sexual misconduct, you're seriously mistaken.
Doesn't it seem strange to you that some of the same conservatives who couldn't forgive Clinton readily embraced Schwarzenegger?
Is that question somehow less valid than wondering why Schwarzenegger's critics were silent about Clinton?
Or am I just one of those goofy lefties, mouthing off again?
- You can reach Mary Jo Melone at mjmelone@sptimes.com or 226-3402.
In the case of the NY Times and LA Times (among others too numerous to mention), that would appear to be a fair assessment.
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!
Okay, you guys, get over there to Europe and grab some women's rears ... But what if they're NOT women, you ask? That's okay, they've all been disarmed!
p.s. I don't think Arnold will be a successful governor - not entirely his fault - but I hope I'm wrong just because of people like Mary Jo!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.