Posted on 11/17/2017 6:24:09 AM PST by Kaslin
(warning: graphic language)
A number of notable liberals have recently decided to start taking allegations of sexual assault against former President Bill Clinton seriously. Let's just say that discarding the Clintons when they're no longer politically useful in order to retroactively grab the higher moral ground isn't exactly an act of heroism. But if we're going to relitigate history, let's get it right.
In The New York Times, for example, Michelle Goldberg spends around 75 percent of her column titled "I Believe Juanita" rationalizing why it was OK not to believe Juanita Broaddrick, who credibly accused Bill Clinton of rape decades ago. You won't be surprised to learn that Goldberg claims the politics and conspiracy mongering of conservatives provoked skepticism among liberals -- excuses that will be awfully familiar to anyone following the justification of Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore's supporters.
The most notable problem with Goldberg's contention is that the Broaddrick allegation was uncovered by NBC News, not Richard Scaife. Well, specifically, it was uncovered by NBC News after the network sat on the story throughout the president's impeachment proceedings. According to the network, the story had to be put through an arduous fact-checking process that included figuring out where Clinton had been the day of the alleged rape -- something that had been worked out in a few days' time.
Then again, the myth that most of the media was enthusiastic about uncovering damaging stories related to Clinton's background persists today. The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, for example, both had their hands on Broaddrick's rape allegation in 1992 but dropped the story. It's also worth remembering that reporter Michael Isikoff was suspended after fighting with his editors at the Washington Post for having dragged their feet on the Paula Jones story in 1994. And in 1998, Isikoff's reporting on Monica Lewinsky for Newsweek was shelved until the Drudge Report brought it to the public's attention. Only after that point did the reporting take off.
In any event, Broaddrick's story had a short shelf life despite the fact that five witnesses claimed she had told them about the rape right after it happened. There were other credible sexual assault allegations against Clinton that went largely ignored.
However reluctant editors might have been in moving forward with these stories, though, the fact is that most of them were ultimately brought to the public's attention by established news organizations, not shady right-wing outlets. Still, Democrats weren't just skeptical of these women; they often treated them with disdain and smeared them for political expediency.
Even today, there is so much throat clearing and blame shifting when it comes to talking about Clinton that it is highly unlikely the dynamics have really changed. Goldberg, for instance, links to a Brian Beutler article in which he cautions liberals to treat future accusations against Democrats in the same way liberals treated Broaddrick.
MSNBC host Chris Hayes recently tweeted, "As gross and cynical and hypocritical as the right's 'what about Bill Clinton' stuff is, it's also true that Democrats and the center left are overdue for a real reckoning with the allegations against him." Why is it gross to point out that Democrats were celebrating Clinton only last year at the Democratic National Convention -- a convention focused specifically on the ascension of women in public life -- even though everyone was privy to all facts regarding his behavior?
In 1998, reporter Nina Burleigh famously wrote that not only would she "be happy" to perform fellatio on Clinton for keeping abortion legal (talk about a straw man) but also that "American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs." Burleigh was an honest liberal who made the moral calculus that whatever Clinton's sins might be, his fight against the imaginary theocracy was well worth the degradation of a few women. Attacks on Clinton, she later explained, were an "insidious use of sexual harassment laws to bring down a president for his pro-female politics."
Although it wasn't said aloud often, the actions of the entire Democratic Party confirmed Burleigh's position, in spirit if not in action. The Clintons were counting on it. An unhealthy veneration for presidents and a deep disdain for the other side induces people to rationalize the worst kind of votes. It is the same calculus some partisans use when defending Moore or Sen. Bob Menendez. But it takes no "courage" to speak up later -- certainly not decades later; certainly not when your purpose is transparently partisan. This isn't a reckoning as much as it is a face-saving.
Maybe the Democrats should suggest he be denied the current benefits of office?
You know very well that’s not going to happen.
Yet they wanted to elect his wife who had as her chief-of-staff a person who husband was sending around pictures of himself on the Internet.
We should also remind the Democrats that Bill Clinton was impeached by they voted to keep him in office.
I would expect no less from a craven democrat.
The Clintons are just not going away so it’s time to cr@p on them and destroy any legacy for both of them. They can’t get Hillary to stop any other way.
It only took the Dems an entire generation to figure out that rape is wrong.
They want to now apply the moral standards, they chose to ignore with Bill Clinton.
You have to expect that from hypocrites.
Their tongues wagged inthe 2008 primary as well.
They stfu about it to present Hitlery Rotten Clinton as the best role model evah. Pink pussyhats and all.
Feminazis lie. They are antiwoman proMarxism
I would point out to Mr. Harsanyi that the allegations against Judge Moore are just that—Allegations.
What little “proof” has been offered in support the stories of these women (i.e., the yearbook) is not enduring scrutiny.
As such, to put Judge Moore in the same class as Bill Clinton is wholly inappropriate.
It’s like Democrats are pre-emptively throwing the Clintons under the bus because they know the Uranium One story has legs.
As far as I am concerned, the whole Bill and Hillary coverup disqualifies the left from saying ANYTHING about ANYONE now.
They are now coming around and saying they believe Bill is a predator....big deal. He’s done, she’s done, the damage is done to the country and the women who came forward were slaughtered by Hillary and her media buddies. They have ZERO credibility commenting on this issue.
Bookmark
“A number of notable liberals have recently decided to start taking allegations of sexual assault against former President Bill Clinton seriously. Let’s just say that discarding the Clintons when they’re no longer politically useful in order to retroactively grab the higher moral ground isn’t exactly an act of heroism. But if we’re going to relitigate history, let’s get it right.”
This is the tactic by the left to put Clinton and Trump on the same moral plane. The disbarred, impeached rapist raped women. Not sure the left wants to really go there. Clinton belonged in prison, not the white house. But the same people who are now going after Trump gave Clinton a pass on the rape.
Al Franken is a casualty but will be sacrificed for the greater good of trying to get Trump.
It will not work.
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.