Posted on 02/17/2014 8:34:52 AM PST by kristinn
Bill Clinton uses a car-racing metaphor to explain the difference between rash and calm decision-making in politics. “The great drivers, when the cars get close, the turns get hairy, they calm down, and they see everything, and they act,” he says. “The ones who are fearful and can't concentrate and can't calm down, run into the wall.”
Republican leaders should pay attention, because on the issue of whether Clinton’s sex life is relevant 14 years after he left office, they’re once again careening toward a wall.
Sen. Rand Paul dredged up Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky and his subsequent impeachment, telling an interviewer last month that Democrats don’t have the moral high ground on women’s issues because the former president’s “predatory” behavior toward the White House intern.
“One of the workplace laws and rules that I think are good is that bosses shouldn’t prey on young interns in their office. And I think the media seems to have given President Clinton a pass on this,” the Kentucky Republican said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
SNIP
I’ll add one more reason. Focusing voters on the past may be a subtle way to argue that Hillary Clinton is not about the future.
Here’s the problem: While Clinton bashing may be a good pre-primary tactic, it’s a lousy politics for the Republican Party in general. We know that because Clinton registered the highest approval ratings of his presidency during the period between the January 1998 exposure of his affair and February 1999, when the Senate voted to acquit him.
In July 2012, Clinton’s approval rating registered at 66 percent, higher than any time since he left office. Two-thirds of women gave him high marks, as did 44 percent of Republicans.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
It is about exposing hypocrisy. Hillary was NOT in the dark as she pretends.
She said in 1992 that Gennifer Flowers was a fraud and that Hillary wasn’t some little woman standing by her cheatin’ man.
O really?
She is a thug. Even if the Lewinsky affair was consensual and without “coercion”, in the 60s, 70s, and 80s NOW said it was an abuse of power for a boss to hire a pretty secretary and take her willingly for overnight weekend trips for sexual encounters.
And there were plenty of allegations by women who were disgusted by his workplace harassment of them (at least one alleging rape).
This is why the whole issue of whether Bill was engaging in workplace affairs was germane to the Paula Jones’ lawsuit.
Bill Clinton was a sexual predator making unwelcome advances and used police intimidation to get his encounters and keep those who held information quiet.
The problem with Lewinski is it was Bill’s problem.
The only way to make an issue of it is to point out that Hillary was either deliberately covering for Bill, or was ignorant of the relationship. Given Bill’s track record, the latter is hardly possible.
It is more important to go after Hillary’s problems as a policy maker - her catastrophic HEALTH PLAN, her propensity for lying (the “lost” IRS documents and her idiotic statements about Bosnia) and her miserable failure as head of the State Department. The issues with Vince Foster, etc. are also fair game.
But HILLARY should be the target, not Bill. HILLARY is running.
This war on women meme is really off base when you look at the 2012 exit polls. Romney won the white women's vote 56% to 42%. He won the married women's vote 53% to 46%'
What skews the women's vote is race and ethnicity. Obama won the women's vote 55% to 44% largely due to the fact he won the black women's vote 96% to 3% and the latina vote 76% to 23%. All others (excluding whites) including Asians 66% to 31%. Taken together, blacks, latinas, and others constitute 19% of the electorate while white women were 38% of the electorate.
The GOP should be pointing this out.
There really does seem to be a concerted push to MAKE Monica a prime issue agains the Hildabeast.
Not her getting kicked off the Nixon impeachment team for corruption, being disbarred, her roll in the Whitewater scandal, not even her role in the Benghazi cover-up...
Ignore decades of corruption.
Bury those issues.
Make it about sex and her Liberal talking heads can turn it into a “Republican attack on women”/”Hillary was a brave Victim”.
Ron must have missed lying under oath and disbarment for doing so and also disgracing the office of the President. But Ron has always been a Clinton *ss kisser from his Arkansas days, no big surprise.
Rand Paul has a great idea. Bill Clintoon is the leader of the Rat party. Bill Clintoon IS A SEXUAL PREDATOR. So anytime the conversation comes up about the "War on Women" then there should be a strict adherence to hoisting up the Rat party icon and reminding people of his sexual harassment of a young woman college intern!
I would not in general hold it against a woman if her former husband had been a sexual predator; it's easy for a naive young woman to fall for a charming rogue. When a woman has the poor judgement or the lust for power to stay with a known serial predator because of his influence, it reflects on her character. When that woman (as with Hillary) leads the war against those women who tell the truth about a sexual predator and coordinates a "nuts and sluts" campaign to demonize women whose only offense is telling the truth, I consider that to be a central issue. We should attack Hillary because she is a bully, because her actions were evil, and because her conduct was inexcusable, not merely "because of her husband's sex life". The key is to clarify the nature of her offense and not permit the liberal media to make it "just about sex".
Re:Fornigate, Hillary would just shrug and say “WHATEVER.”
But then again, she does that with every scandal.
Will we ever again get to the point of talking freedom, liberty, respect of the Constitution, private property, true prosperity, equality of opportunity vs equality of outcomes, and the joys of being a sovereign nation?
Or is that a hard concept for the party bosses to grasp?
we learned from Sarah Palin that McCains campaign people told her “hands off Obama” and his background.
Rush said today that Romney people told him that the GOP strategy during that campaign was “hands off Obama”.
and now the GOP is telling everyone it’s “hands off Hillary and Bill” and their history.
OK, and we are supposed to think there is NOT a Uniparty??
Just as Mitt Romney apparently thought it was "not cricket" to bring up Benghazi during the debates in 2012. Romney was playing cricket while Obama played hardball.
True....disgusting RINOism
By all means let’s take advice from an Obama house journalist.
It is more important to go after Hillary’s problems as a policy maker - her catastrophic HEALTH PLAN, her propensity for lying (the “lost” IRS documents and her idiotic statements about Bosnia) and her miserable failure as head of the State Department. The issues with Vince Foster, etc. are also fair game.
I agree that Hillary is hypocritical, and that blaming the women instead of Bill for his behavior is pretty obviously anti-women. However, I don't believe this is the message that will reach the potential voters.
Didn't happen did it Hill?
It won't come from your "free" press that is for sure.
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.