It doesn’t matter how loudly they try to reclaim their morality.
As long as Clinton is the head of the Democrat Party, the
waves of laughter will make that reclamation elusive.
Posted on 10/08/2003 10:06:52 AM PDT by presidio9
As Democrats and feminists shove each other out of the way in the stampede for microphones to decry and condemn Arnold Schwarzenegger as unfit for public office because he allegedly groped some women’s behinds, one has to wonder if they have collective and selective Alzheimer’s.
Unless you have been lost in another dimension for the last ten years, you know about Bill Clinton’s problems with women. Paula, Juanita, Kathleen, the list is long. All claimed he groped, exposed himself or raped them.
Clinton’s unsolicited advances involving women didn’t begin when he became President.
In 1969, as Clinton was in England on his Rhodes scholarship, the State Department received a report of a nineteen year-old British girl who was charging she had been raped by an American. That American was student Bill Clinton. The State Department employee, now retired, told Capitol Hill Blue, "There is no doubt in my mind that this woman suffered severe emotional trauma. But we were under tremendous pressure to avoid the embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape. I filed a report to my superiors and that was the last I heard of it."
Capitol Hill Blue has done several investigations into Bill Clinton allegations of sexual impropriety in the past.
In 1972, a twenty-two year-old woman reported to Yale police that she had been assaulted by Bill Clinton. While she did not press charges, when contacted and questioned about the event, both the woman and the Yale Police confirmed the incident.
Did Clinton's behavior change when he made the switch from student to teacher? Not according to a female student in one of his classes at the University of Arkansas. This young student claimed he blocked her exit from the room, groped her and put his hands under her blouse. She complained to her faculty advisor but Clinton only said, “She came on to me.” The woman left the school shortly thereafter.
Many do not realize that the Juanita Broaddrick incident was first reported as a rape and pictures of her bit lip and bruises did exist. Conveniently, those have now been “lost” by the hospital along with the nurse’s written report.
Roger Morris, of Partners in Power, reports that a female lawyer reported to him that Clinton forced himself on her and when she said no, he bit her lip. When this woman’s husband crossed paths with Bill later that year, he issued a warning to Clinton to never touch his wife again or he would kill him. A sheepish Bill promised he would never bother her again.
A legal secretary reported to her Clinton-supporter boyfriend that Clinton had tried to force her to have oral sex. She was warned to keep her mouth shut and forget about it because “bad things happen to people who cross the Clinton’s.” Bill Clinton’s scandals involving women show him to be a serial groper at the least and a rapist at the worst. Yet the Democrats today seem to have forgotten all of it. The Feminists turn a blind eye.
His indiscretions aren’t limited to women. There are many reports of drug use, including a video gathered in a police sting which shows Roger Clinton buying drugs for his brother, Bill. "Got to get some for my brother. He's got a nose like a vacuum cleaner." Roger laughed.
Depressed about losing the Governorship in Arkansas, Bill was brought in by State Troopers to a Little Rock E.R. for treatment of an overdose. Dr. Sam Houston, a respected Little Rock physician, described how a furious Hillary stormed into the hospital pinning hospital doctors up against the wall telling them if they ever wanted to practice medicine in the United States, they had better keep their mouths shut.
Convinced that Bill Clinton was the party’s Knight in Shining Armor that would stop their decline at the hands of Republicans, the Democrat Party sold their souls to protect and defend this man.
The cost has been very high. The Clintons rule the party with an iron fist. They constantly meddle in the current Presidential campaign. There are audible giggles whenever they attempt to accuse anyone of sexual indiscretions. All accusations seem frivolous compared to the charges that continue to swirl around the leader of their party. Clinton’s face is often on the front of the tabloids linking him to women that are not Hillary. Hardly the respected and dignified ex-President the party would like to hold up as a glowing example of the party.
Perhaps when they chose Clinton as their champion, most were not aware of his past. It is frightening to think they would have all ignored it. But once he had power, they were trapped. The only escape would have been to side with the opposition. They put party and power above all and willingly abandoned any claim to being a moral and ethical political party. It doesn’t matter how loudly they try to reclaim their morality, as long as Clinton is the head of the Democrat Party, the waves of laughter will make that reclamation elusive.
It doesn’t matter how loudly they try to reclaim their morality.
As long as Clinton is the head of the Democrat Party, the
waves of laughter will make that reclamation elusive.
That's because Clinton is the titular head of the Democrat party.
Faulty assertion. They have to have been on the moral high ground in the first place to have lost it. Clinton is simply the grand mudslide on the slippery slope of moral relativism the RATS operate from. He's just taking them for a long downhill run.
Somehow I don't think keeping her mouth closed is going to be a problem.
I strongly disagree with the title. President Clinton did NOT cost the Democrats the High Moral Ground. Democrats obsession for power and win-at-all-cost mentality cost hem the moral high ground.
Yes, there were many allegations against Bill Clinton. When he was sued for his conduct, the Democratic Leaders defended him and attacked his accuser. Their fear of losing power blinded them on doing the right thing. They lost the perfect opportunity to establish the High Moral Ground for their party.
Defending Bill Clinton is just one of many immoral actions the Democrats have taken in recent years. They engaged in character assisnation in the California governor's race not unlike their attacks against Clarance Thomas, Newt Gingrigh, and an array of other conservative. If you disagree with a Democrat, you must be a (fill in the blank).
Their actions leave little doubt that the Democrats have lost their way and is the party of immorality.
What makes you say that?
I guess it would be appropriate to add Rush to that list.
In my good-hearted (and probably foolish) way of according people the benefit of doubt, I have often wondered if this might not be true. But then I think, gee, why don't they just dump the slimemold and be done with it? But they keep on trotting out the ragged remnants of the Clinton era. They installed his beastly wife as a Senator, and elected his bagman as head of the DNC. So that leads me to think that either the Clintons are like a narcotic, difficult to kick once hooked, or that most Rats in any position of influence knew exactly what they were getting when they cast their lot with Clinton. They made their Faustian bargain and now the payment is coming due, with interest.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/997466/posts
Why doesn't Hillary dump Bill? It is common knowledge in Chappaqua that he is having a very public affair with a divorced 37 year-old local resident. His secret service motorcade frequently spends the night parked in her driveway.
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.