Posted on 10/03/2003 6:57:13 AM PDT by John Jorsett
SAN DIEGO — Reports of Arnold Schwarzenegger's sexual mistreatment and humiliation of women drew outrage here Thursday on the campaign trail.
Outrage at the Los Angeles Times, not at Arnold.
I would have thought that at a gathering of conservatives, who rightly vilified President Bill Clinton for his raunchy scandal and nationally televised lies, there'd at least be some finger-wagging at Arnold.
Not a chance with the Teflon Terminator.
In San Diego, one Arnold supporter after another bashed The Times, and the beating continued at a second appearance in Costa Mesa, where hundreds of Arnold supporters roundly booed the mere mention of the paper.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I phrased it as I did because, although boorish and wrong, it does not even compare to Clinton's sexual assaults. The RATS allowed raped. We are not going to let them win on this one.
Desperate, actually. It is clear to me that the Times had this story waiting, waiting for one of the women to say more, waiting to get more women on the story, waiting for Davis' or Cruz' numbers to increase. Waiting for anything. But Dirt Dump Day is the Thursday before the election and if they were going to torpedo Arnold's candidacy, they had to do it yesterday.
Brilliant strategy, actually. Rumors are now floating that the LAT will try a follow-up piece with more women claiming to be groped. Or talked rude to. Or not told they are pretty. Whatever.
Anyway, by doing a blanket, non-specific apology, he forstalls any future allegations.
As a sideline, it will be interesting to see the LAT squirm when they release another hit piece in 4 days even though they claim that sourcing the first story was why it was in the can 7 weeks and just happened to be released on Dirt Dump Day.
The last story the LA Times mentioned occured in 2000.
IIRC, that's the one that was contradicted by other eyewitnesses.
Dittos ... they are only 'serious' about indoctrination, not about information. LA Slimes (and our own local unamerican spaceman (Austin TX)) have shown their true biased colors.
Glad you're in West Virginia. We here in California are voting for a Republican who can win.
You have no idea of what calumny the Republican party would face if the recall people (having forced this recall) had forced the state to spend $65-70 million during a budget deficit crisis and it ended with no change in the government.
The purist conservatives got the Republicans into this mess, and the Republicans are now out there trying to salvage the reputation of the party by making sure a Republican is elected in this heavily Democrat state.
I'm out in my precinct stumping for Arnold, and he's a whole lot better than what we have now or what we would get if people vote their hearts instead of their heads.
Did you read the article? We did, and the Times mentioned below the charge that witnesses to the event say the woman interviewer came up to Arnold after the interview, cupped her breasts, said "What do you think of these?" and then sat in his lap.
Witnesses say she was then escorted out of the room by Arnold's security people.
Yeah, they have the XY chromosome dysfunction.
And yes, the old Republicans like me have endorsed Arnold (the Republican county chairmen's association and now the state Republican party) because we truly believe as much as we like Tom McClintock that he cannot win statewide.
You're in Democrat West Virginia, and lost by quite a margin to Jaye Rockefeller in the Senate race last year. This is what happens when you run purist conservatives in a state with a heavy Democrat majority.
So, if you think McClintock could win here, explain why your candidate lost last year. And also why the conservative lost in the New Jersey governor's race. And why Simon lost last year here? I sent money for all of them, but they all lost.
Well said.
Actually there are bigger differences.
Clinton's involved the abuse of one's office....and the powers of Govt...which is much worse than anything Arnold has been accused off.
I haven't heard this mentioned yet but when the slimes try to compare Arnold's sexcapades to Clinton's there is one MAJOR DIFFERENCE - Arnold's stuff is 20 - 30 years in the past. Clinktoon's crap was done while he was in office and one can trace his behavior all the way back to college. Arnold is not the same man today he was back then. He learned from his mistakes and became a better man. Compare Willy? There is no comparison. Slick is the same twisted scumbag he's always been.
Another point I have not heard yet is that the culture of the 70's was much different than the culture of today, particuarly in the body building and Hollywierd world. Things were not as politically correct as they are today. The FemNazi movement was in its infancy back then.
Why no one has mentioned these things yet is beyond me.
Does the LAT have a breeding farm for these types?
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.