Posted on 02/06/2014 9:40:22 AM PST by cotton1706
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul says Democrats need to “disown” Bill Clinton because of his history as a “sexual predator.”
“I think he’s not particularly the greatest role model for the women’s rights movement,” Paul said in an interview posted Wednesday on NewsmaxTV. “And so I think if they want to be credible in saying that they defend women’s rights in the work place, they really need to disown and really return any contributions that Bill Clinton’s either raising for people or giving to people.”
“I think for the movement to proceed on and have any consistency they need to dissociate themselves from him,” Paul said.
Paul explained that in politics today, politicians are often called upon to return contributions from “unsavory” characters.
“You know, all the time, candidates are asked to return money if an unsavory character gives you money. What if that unsavory character is your husband? What if that unsavory character is Bill Clinton raising money for people across the country? And what if he were someone that was guilty of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior in the workplace?” Paul said.
“Obviously having sex with an intern in the office is inappropriate by any standard,” Paul said of Clinton. “And where are the women who believe in women’s rights, the women who allege some kind of war is going on by the other party? Where are they to stand up and say, you know what, maybe Bill Clinton isn’t the best representative of our party since he really depicts what’s gross and wrong with workplace harassment.”
Asked if he thinks Clinton is a “unsavory character,” Paul replied: “Yeah, I mean a predator. A sexual predator, basically repetitive… There’s dozens of – or at least a half a dozen – public women who have come forward.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
And Paul is unflappable. He says it in such a nice way that the press never gets anywhere in their attempt to attack him on it.
Agreed. It is nice to see someone with a clue on the offense for once.
This is entertaining stuff but is the purpose to convict Hillary by association?
I see Paul is being coy and saying Hillary bares no responsibility for what Bill did wrt that.
I would suggest an equal light shined on the other Clinton scandals. Bill Clinton is not just a perv, he and Hilary are corrupt.
Little things like a bizarre “national park” created to prevent us from developing clean coal because Billy got illegal cash from Indonesia; Giving the Chinese the computers needed to destroy our ships and cities; Hilary obviously hiding her billing records in the White House.
Disown? In the Democrat Party, it is called building your resume.
This is an important comment. Our side stops fighting old battles, and the left constantly works on re-writing history. Paul is exactly right to bring this up. We’ve allowed Clinton’s history to be re-written. 2012’s outcome was largely because we didn’t take the opportunity to compare and contrast Clinton’s presidency and his eventual compromises on welfare reform and tax cuts for investors with Obama’s undoing on welfare reforms and tax increases that hampered the economic recovery.
Paul gets it. Most of the party is stuck on stupid.
For all the time he’s spent in DC he sure knows precious little about dems.
Bill Clinton is a successful fund raiser for the Democrats. I suspect it is an attempt to make that harder for them.
.... Won't happen because he is a figurehead of the Socialist cult movement. In order to "Disown" someone ... you have to admit that there is a problem .... as in all cults, because of their denial, they cannot see the problem or any problem associated with their cult...
.... Unfortunately for us .... the cult has almost reached the point of Absolute Power and is ruling this country with impunity. Question is .... who can stop them?
“For all the time he’s spent in DC he sure knows precious little about dems.”
No, he gets it. He knows it wouldn’t happen. He’s developing a talking point for the stupid republicans when they’re questioned on the “war on women” crap.
I didn't think of that.
That's pretty clever,
I haven't seen the libs on MSNBC find a PC way to point that out.
That was going to be my point. Thank you.
He's just using the Democrats own strategy. Keep pounding on it and make the media talk about it.
Clinton sexually harassed Monica, but no feminazis condemned him. There is absolutely no doubt that it was sexual harassment.
If a manager compliments a female employee on her nice dress he is risking being raked over the coals and fired.
To me, that statement raises a very serious question: What if, instead of sending her recorded Lewinsky conversations to Ken Starr, Linda Tripp had instead secretly offered them for sale, say, to the Chinese government? Or to the Russians? Or even to agents of Saddam?
What kind of blackmail leverage would those tapes have provided to a foreign government in dealing with America on sensitive trade, security or military issues? One of the few things Clinton ever said that I believe is that he would have done anything to keep the Lewinsky affair secret. Given his demonstrated track record of selling out American interests for personal or political gain (and there are more examples that I could have cited here), how far would he have gone in compromising America’s real interests in order to protect his own neck when threatened with blackmail?
Pretty far, I believe. Equally distressing is the prospect Clinton might, in fact, have succumbed to foreign black mail on other occasions in order to hide different sexual episodes that ultimately did not become public. There is no way to know, of course, but I prefer presidents for whom such a scenario is not a plausible possibility.
Nina Burleigh explained the value of Bill Clinton to Sexist Women and how much they value him.
When a David Gregory (democrat activist) on the Sunday talk shows calls him on it he enters the trap!
David: "Calling Bill Clinton a sexual predator is a bit extreme wouldn't you agree?"
Answer: "It is only extreme if you believe that sexual harassment of women in the workplace is normal behavior. If you are a father, husband, brother of a young woman would you want them subjected to what Bill Clinton did? He preyed upon a young woman in his office. Democrats hail their sexual predator in high esteem while projecting that Republicans have a "war on women." So tell me again who has a war on women?
FINALLY!!!
Bring this up EVERY TIME until they are scared to death to say the words “GOP” and “war on women” in the same sentence
“He’s developing a talking point for the stupid republicans when they’re questioned on the “war on women” crap.”
Exactly right.
Now if someone would just do the same with the “racial profiling” crap being something republicans do when in fact it was Bill Clinton that got sued for ordering his Arkansas State troopers to racial profile.
Then someone else cam do the same with “voter disenfranchisement” and republicans wanting to deny “minorities” the right to vote since it was Gov. Bill Clinton that got himself sued for “voter disenfranchisement” because he didn’t like the way blacks voted so he just overturned the election.
If a male manager walks into the office breathing one day, he is subject to being accused of sexual harassment.
But Clinton promised feminazis abortion, and they deliberately and intentionally overlooked Clinton’s harassment.
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.