Replies

Hmmm... interesting, I had read both accounts before but it's illuminating to see them side by side like this. Walters' acct. is certainly less sensational than Kelley's and I wonder whether:

a)Kelley embellished Walters' account somehow or

b)Walters herself was less forthcoming with People than she was with Kelley

In either event, it's worth remembering that even if RR was "fighting" and "had his way" with this young woman, it happened a long time ago, in a different era, when that sort of thing was more acceptable (albeit rarely discussed) - the term "date rape" didn't even exist yet!

..a more innocent (naive?) era for sure....

Well, yeah, but Walters is just one person telling a story to a scandal author; the Broadrick case has a lot more detail and compelling facts associated with her account.

I just cannot see an honest person seeing a similiarity in the stories.

This should be an interesting laughable comparison-

In Kitty Kelley's 1991 book Nancy Reagan: The Unauthorized Biography, actress Selene Walters accused Ronald Reagan of raping her. People magazine did a follow up interview with Walters, and all in all it had about the same credibility as the Juanita Broaddrick story. Except of course, there was no television network devoting most of its time to it, the Wall Street Journal did not devote its editorial page to it, it did not appear as headlines in all the major newspapers, it was not the topic of discussion on every talking head program, and Rush Limbaugh never even mentioned it. In fact I have not seen nor heard any mention of this anywhere by any media source other than on the net. Some liberal media, eh?

The call now from the Right and the media is for Clinton to answer to the accusation. When Reagan was approached with the charge by a reporter outside one of his biannual treks to church, he said, "I don't think a church would be the proper place to use the word I would have to use in discussing that." That was a good enough answer for conservatives though.

But we have to remember, Ronald Reagan is the moral example of conservative Americans.

Divorced, knocked up his bride to be and slapped around his daughter. Bill Clinton did none of those things, but that does not matter because he did far far worse, he got a couple BJ's from a bimbo at work.

I have to say that in her interview, Monica is one of the very few people who hit the nail right on the head with her giggly frivolity concerning it, for giggly frivolity is just what a couple BJs are. Not as Ken Starr and Company would have you believe, cause to threaten numerous families with twenty years in prison and the end of the rule of law as we know it.

Again here we are with the problem conservatives are far overdue in suffering, the abject hypocrisy of it all. The good news being, they just don't get it, and probably never will.

When the Reagan rape story recently hit the Internet, it was interesting to notice that accusations against Clinton are proof of guilt, while accusations against Reagan are just a bunch of partisan lies. But not a few moderates agreed that to be fair, both presidents should be made to answer for the accusations.

I suppose we could get Ken Starr to personally go unstrap Ronnie from his poopy chair and drag him down to some Grand Jury he has going somewhere to answer up. But I don't think much would come out rather than cries of "Mommie Mommie, I have to pee-pee," or "I liberated Buchenwald Mommie!"

And then Clinton. Gosh, the call for him to come forward sure is a swarthy partisan game. If he denies it, the story will be what a joke it is for Clinton to deny anything. We'd be hearing that attached to the end of the finger waving denial from now until doomsday.

FYI - I took this from another web site and did not author it....

One difference is that Clinton was the Arkansas Attorney General when he raped Broadrick and was a Governor and President when other things transpired.