Democrats Suffer From Opportunistic Guilt

If you’ve ever watched a flock of birds fly – twisting, spinning, diving, like a sheet on a wire on a windy day – it’s amazing how they don’t slam into each other and tumble from the sky. They move with what seems like one mind, as if every movement is part of a plan. Progressives are very much the same way, without the grace.

It’s always been curious to me how a word or phrase can pop up suddenly and exit the mouths of nearly every journalist simultaneously as if it were a cicada waiting for its time to emerge. Anyone remember how the word “gravitas” appeared everywhere in 2000 when candidate George W. Bush selected Dick Cheney as his running mate? It spread faster than a cold on a plane throughout the media, almost like an order was given or a memo sent.

But there was no need for an order or a memo. Those calls aren’t required because the political left is of one mind, a hive mind, when it comes to advancing whatever agenda item or narrative is at the forefront at the moment.

In 2000, it was that George W. Bush is a moron who needs someone with brains on the ticket. Now, it is the need to speak with some level of believable outrage of the allegations of sexual misconduct against Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate race.

I’ve never been a fan of Moore; I tend to dislike people who ignore the law based on their personal opinions or wishes (same reason I oppose people who embrace sanctuary cities), so his collapse not only didn’t bother me, it didn’t surprise me.

With that out of the way, I’ll say I believe the women who accused him of getting physical when they were under the age of consent. I also believed Harvey Weinstein’s, and Kevin Spacey’s, and George Takei’s, and nearly all the others.

Their stories are believable, and the denials have not been. That’s my standard – does this sound like something that could have happened?

That’s why I believed Bill Clinton’s accusers; I could see him doing what he was accused of. It was plausible. And his defense was to attack the accusers. More accurately, he didn’t say much of anything, his defenders did.

Led by Hillary Clinton and George Stephanopoulos, the “bimbo eruptions brigade” set about smearing anyone who dared attempt to tell their story. But it wasn’t just George and Hillary; the entire left-wing establishment, including the media, was right there with them, every step of the way, to protect Bill Clinton from any accusation because they supported his agenda.

Now, as if out of the blue, there is a movement on the left to have a “reckoning” with their actions of the past.

In one 24-hour period, the Atlantic called out liberals, including feminist icon Gloria Steinem, for their complicity in enabling and justifying Slick Willie’s predatory behavior. The New York Times ran a mea cupla piece on the subject, too. And MSNBC’s Chris Hayes and CNN’s Jake Tapper have pointed out how – 20 years later – liberals probably should’ve given Clinton’s accusers a fair hearing and not mockery and dismissal.

But they did offer only mockery and dismissal.

And their “moment of reckoning” is not as much over what they did in the past; it’s to blunt the charge of hypocrisy now. In the case of the Atlantic, the Times, and Hayes, they all took the opportunity of the “soul searching” to take attack conservatives for liberals’ past bad actions.

In the “I Believe Juanita” piece in the Times, writer Michelle Goldberg states, “The Clinton years, in which epistemological warfare emerged as a key part of the Republican political arsenal, show us why we should be wary of allegations that bubble up from the right-wing press.” At the end of the '90s there were about four outlets in the “right-wing press.” No rational person would believe National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Washington Times and a relatively new Fox News Channel had the power to cook up and spread these stories about the philandering president.

No, this is not a “reckoning;” it’s a strategy.

The left’s largest attack of the 2016 campaign, the Access Hollywood tape, was blunted, to one degree or another, by the fact Donald Trump was able to point to Bill Clinton’s past. Voters remembered how journalists ignored or downplayed what Clinton was accused of and how his accusers were smeared. They saw the double standard, and the whole episode was a political wash.

It similarly blunts the attacks on Roy Moore. That is why these liberals are now confessing their previous bad actions – they have no response to the charge of hypocrisy. And they desperately want to attack all Republicans for the charges against Moore.

It’s opportunistic, not genuine. And it rings hallow.

In Politico, Jeff Greenfield points out, “How Roy Moore’s Misdeeds Are Forcing an Awakening on the Left.” It’s not an awakening, it’s a strategy. “Years of excusing Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct suddenly seems morally indefensible,” the subtitle declares.

“Suddenly”? No, liberals’ “years of excusing Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct” didn’t “suddenly” become “morally indefensible;” they became a political liability. The Clintons are of no value to Democrats anymore. They have nothing to sell and there’s no one to buy. Now there is no political price to be paid for attacking them and no political gain from defending them.

When every other option is exhausted, you can count on liberals to do their version of the right thing. They didn’t need to be told; they just knew to do it, knew they had to. And they deserve no credit for finally doing it.

Attacking Bill Clinton is a cost-free exercise for the Progressive LEFTists. They can bloviate all that they want, the only thing to lose is the charming William Jefferson Clinton ability to give wonderful speeches as the Democrat’s ‘Elder Statesman’. It is now somewhat akin to having Bill Cosby, what was once comfortable is now the opposite! Besides, Barrack H Obama is far more suited for the leftward-ho movement into socialism and redistribution and he doesn’t need heavy makeup either!

I think you will find the Clintons doing far more overseas than here in the USofA over the next few years. An exchange of favors between friends and keeping the gates open for Chelsea to write her bio about “Daddy Dearest” as she runs for the legacy as a victim!

Overall a very good article. Unlike the author, I'm not ready yet to throw Roy Moore under the bus. Especially since Gloria Allred is involved with the accusers - Gloria has proven to have zero credibility and has a reputation of pulling out of the woodwork "victims" of sexual misconduct whenever it's a Republican neck that's on the line. Case in point is Herman Cain. And as soon as Herman Cain dropped out of the presidential race, the women accusers suddenly dried up like rain puddles on a hot summer day for they served their purpose. So it was not about justice for women victims but about political advantage for liberal Democrats.

Which brings us to Hillary's stunning defeat a year ago - which still tastes so sweet today.

The delicious irony is that the "Hollywood Access" tape would have surely sunk Donald Trump had Bill Clinton been held accountable for all his sexual misconduct from years ago. However, back in the day, Hillary led the charge (with the "bimbo eruptions" team) to mock, ridicule and discredit the victims of Bill Clinton's sexual crimes.

Had Bill Clinton been held accountable back then, Hillary Clinton would probably be president today! Think about that one. Strange karma indeed.

Anyone remember how the word “gravitas” appeared everywhere in 2000 when candidate George W. Bush selected Dick Cheney as his running mate? It spread faster than a cold on a plane throughout the media, almost like an order was given or a memo sent.

But there was no need for an order or a memo. Those calls aren’t required because the political left is of one mind, a hive mind, when it comes to advancing whatever agenda item or narrative is at the forefront at the moment.

The “memo” doesn’t have to be “sent” because the journalists are all part of the AP. The “wire” assures that everyone gets the word. Whoever comes up with a condign phrase to express what they all are thinking just triggers a cascade.

In 2000, it was that George W. Bush is a moron who needs someone with brains on the ticket. Now, it is the need to speak with some level of believable outrage of the allegations of sexual misconduct against Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate race.

I’ve never been a fan of Moore; I tend to dislike people who ignore the law based on their personal opinions or wishes (same reason I oppose people who embrace sanctuary cities), so his collapse not only didn’t bother me, it didn’t surprise me.

That to me is too easy. First, Moore was right about the Ten Commandments; if they are on the wall in SCOTUS they can be on the wall in any American court.
Secondly, Moore has no more women proclaiming his moral turpitude than Donald Trump less than a year ago and - surprise, surprise! - these charges crop up at the most convenient time for the Democrats.
Finally, given the proclivity of the journalists (and other Democrats), I have no reason to assume that, if the Democrat happens to be 10x worse than Moore might be, I would know it. I wouldn’t, you know - because Republicans don’t run against that sort of thing in a personal way, and if they did journalism would dump on them for doing it. And because if the Democrat has a moral turpitude issue, journalists wouldn’t mention it to me before the election - and maybe not later either.
So I just consider it to be noise. Would the Democrat help or hurt the ability of Trump to install good judges in federal courthouses? He would make it harder - and after 2018 elections that could, in the worst case, be crucial. So an abundance of caution about Moore could be quite expensive, and not a conservative approach to politics. I don’t live in Alabama, but I did contribute to the Moore campaign. If Moore wins and is exonerated of the worst charges (at least) the whole thing blows over.
Because some of the “charges” are IMHO overblown. Allowing that the age of consent was lower in AL at the time, and that Moore was respectful of the girls’ parents. At that point it’s on the parents - and mores have changed about May-December marriages (there wouldn’t be a non-pejorative name for them, if approbation against them had been as strong in the past as, say, that against homosexuality). My own maternal grandmother was a teen bride of a widower whose son had survived the disease that carried off his sister and mother. And according to what I read about Ireland, the term “fighting Irish” derives from the fact that Irishmen didn’t marry until they inherited their fathers’ farms and thus could support a family - thus, the adolescent irresponsibility we are familiar with was seen is much older guys. And equally, the Irish maiden would see older men as attractive, since younger men were not acceptable mates.
And as to the concern that teen brides would be immature, well - women in general were treated as immature, in living memory. As recently as 1950, I’m pretty sure that women couldn’t open an account at a stock broker. And had few professions (teacher and nurse) open to them. So for a girl it was just a matter of learning homemaker’s skills at her mother’s knee - and becoming an attractive maiden. In 1955 nearly all girls married within a year of high school graduation. And they weren’t marrying younger guys . . .

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.