Clancie said:
Why is it so hard for you to believe that women can do it to AS (whom you do not like), when you know that several have done it to Clinton (whom you do like)?
Your ability to consciously select reality is truly amazing....
Schwarzenegger's Boorish Behavior
- Thread starter Clancie
- Start date
Why is it so hard for you to believe that women can do it to AS (whom you do not like), when you know that several have done it to Clinton (whom you do like)?
Your ability to consciously select reality is truly amazing....
crackmonkey
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Messages
- 1,057
Maureen Dowd has (gasp) a coherent moment about this...
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/opinion/05DOWD.html?pagewanted=print&position=
(NY Times - free registration required)
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/opinion/05DOWD.html?pagewanted=print&position=
(NY Times - free registration required)
davefoc
Philosopher
On the Susan Estrich column:
I actually agree more with Clancie than Susan Estrich on this. I was surprised at her take. I wondered if it didn't come out of a genuine attempt to be fair to someone not in her political camp.
But I also gave Schwarzenegger some credit for a more honest response than is usual from a politician. At this point he easily could have gone into complete denial mode and probably done better at the polls. I wonder if Clancie wouldn't agree that there is a sharp contrast here between Schwarzenegger's approach and say the Clinton's approach when dealing with damaging information.
On the Maureen Dowd column:
This sounded like routine partisan, blast my enemies stuff to me. There isn't anybody alive that hasn't said a few things that would prevent them from holding elective office if they were somehow released. Dowd knows this, Dowd also knows that Schwarzenegger is not a Nazi, Dowd also knows that intellectual musings about the skills of despicable people can easily be taken out of context and used to make the person making the comments sound in some way despicable also. Dowd knows all of this and yet she choses to blast away. Doesn't say much for her integrity in my mind.
I actually agree more with Clancie than Susan Estrich on this. I was surprised at her take. I wondered if it didn't come out of a genuine attempt to be fair to someone not in her political camp.
But I also gave Schwarzenegger some credit for a more honest response than is usual from a politician. At this point he easily could have gone into complete denial mode and probably done better at the polls. I wonder if Clancie wouldn't agree that there is a sharp contrast here between Schwarzenegger's approach and say the Clinton's approach when dealing with damaging information.
On the Maureen Dowd column:
This sounded like routine partisan, blast my enemies stuff to me. There isn't anybody alive that hasn't said a few things that would prevent them from holding elective office if they were somehow released. Dowd knows this, Dowd also knows that Schwarzenegger is not a Nazi, Dowd also knows that intellectual musings about the skills of despicable people can easily be taken out of context and used to make the person making the comments sound in some way despicable also. Dowd knows all of this and yet she choses to blast away. Doesn't say much for her integrity in my mind.
crackmonkey
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Messages
- 1,057
Did you read the same article that I linked to? Dowd's column was blasting NOW, Hilary, and the Dems for their selective outrage over Arnold's 'boorishness' while giving Bill Clinton a pass (while he was being accused of far worse).
Personally, while the allegations of Arnold's misbehavior are distasteful, they certainly were events in the past. He has said that he has misbehaved in the oast, and asked for forgiveness... contrast this with Clinton, who was alleged to have comitted rape and numerous sexual assaults while in office, and who went on to deny it and cover it up. No comparison.
Personally, while the allegations of Arnold's misbehavior are distasteful, they certainly were events in the past. He has said that he has misbehaved in the oast, and asked for forgiveness... contrast this with Clinton, who was alleged to have comitted rape and numerous sexual assaults while in office, and who went on to deny it and cover it up. No comparison.
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
"who was alleged to have comitted rape and numerous sexual assaults while in office, and who went on to deny it and cover it up. No comparison."
And don't forget Vince Foster and all the other people who mysteriously died because of that fiend
And don't forget Vince Foster and all the other people who mysteriously died because of that fiend
crackmonkey
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Messages
- 1,057
Was that the best rebuttal you can muster? I suspect so... this is a pretty obvious comparison, and many Dems find this hypocrisy distasteful. At least a few have the integrity to admit it.
davefoc
Philosopher
crackmonkey,
whoops, I'm not sure what I was reading or what I was on but I obviously got the gist of the Dowd article wrong.
Sorry,
Dave
whoops, I'm not sure what I was reading or what I was on but I obviously got the gist of the Dowd article wrong.
Sorry,
Dave
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
Since you seem to believe every crackpot story about Clinton, I was just making sure you didn't miss any.
Hi davefoc,
Well, yes I do agree there's a sharp contrast between Schwarzenegger and Clinton, but I'm not sure that its the same one you're thinking of.
Here are the contrasts I see:
- Clinton's much investigated relationship with Monica Lewinsky
(and before that, with Gennifer Flowers) was 100% consensual.
- Not one of the (now 15) women who've come forward in the last four days about Arnold's behavior toward them were consenting to it. He forced himself on them, and they all say they felt embarrassed, bullied, and degraded by the ways he did it.
Very different, imo. I don't feel AS has addressed his actions candidly at all, and he also seems to lack the most basic empathy for the women who have come forward. To me he seems very cocky and quite insulting toward them, actually.
Hmmm...crackmonkey....where to begin?
The only Clinton accusers I can think of are three (not 15), with very different stories (not the similar patterns described by the women talking about AS)....
- Paula Jones--claiming the state troopers took her up to his hotel room where he dropped his pants. (Also claiming harrassment on the basis that she was denied raises, promotions, etc. afterwards...none of which was true).
I don't want to say something bad about Paula Jones, so I'll just say....if Clinton used state troopers to "procure" her to come to his hotel room, you'd think there'd be an awful lot more women that had experienced the same thing. Yet....(unlike the AS accusers)...there are none. I never found her the least bit credible (in addition to being totally obnoxious...oops!
).
- Kathleen Wiley--who claimed Clinton's "comforting hug" on the traumatic day of her husband's death was actually some kind of groping. Well, again, she's the only one describing this--no others experienced the same or similar--and, under the circumstances, (if she's not lying), its possible that she was very emotional that day and misunderstood.
- Juanita Broaddrick--who claimed Clinton "raped" her. However, she later signed an affadavit saying that he hadn't. Again, if he's a "rapist", why would she be the only one in his entire lifetime who experienced this treatment? It didn't even make any sense (and, again, did she lie about the rape? Or did she perjur herself when she signed the affadavit? Either way...not very convincing.)
As for what AS and Clinton said...well Clinton denied the three above attacks and there's no pattern of accusation there that supports their allegations. Each are so very different and, in Paula Jones case, may very well be politically (or monetarily) motivated. Its a fact that she profited financially from making these charges.
Well, the 3 charges against Clinton appear to be lies, for one thing. Denying a lie is not a bad thing.
The first day the AS story aired, AS was a bit contrite, although not exactly clear which accusations he was admitting and which he was denying. His "I'm sorry if I offended anyone" was pretty weak, but, yes,...a start.
However, as time has passed, he's gotten more and more cocky. I posted his statements yesterday--saying the stories are "dirty politics that Davis is known for"...ridiculing the women he offended...making a joke about it really being women coming on to him and his (natural male response) being exaggerated and misinterpreted....
Just more and more "good ol' boy-ism" as far as I can see. Crude, vulgar, boorish, tacky. Lots of rationalization. Lots of shifting the blame.
Nope, not impressed in the slightest.
Apart from the (very important) issue of consent, to me, that is a huge contrast between Clinton and Schwarzenegger's conduct.
If this was women coming forward describing having an affair with AS, I would say a great big, "So what?" Really, just like with Clinton, it might make you think he's not a very great husband (and not much of a boyfriend either
), but sex between consenting adults is none of my business, imo, no matter who they are.Sexual harrassment--which could have been misdemeanors and a felony if all the accounts are true--is serious. Schwarzenegger's lack of remorse or taking responsibility for the obvious distress he caused these numerous women just underscores the idea that it was a power trip all along.
Oh well, I'm prepared that he will win on Tuesday.
Should be an "interesting" 3 years.....SRW
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2001
- Messages
- 2,903
Clancie said:
As for what AS and Clinton said...well Clinton denied the three above attacks and there's no pattern of accusation there that supports their allegations. Each are so very different and, in Paula Jones case, may very well be politically (or monetarily) motivated. Its a fact that she profited financially from making these charges.
Well, the 3 charges against Clinton appear to be lies, for one thing. Denying a lie is not a bad thing.
The first day the AS story aired, AS was a bit contrite, although not exactly clear which accusations he was admitting and which he was denying. His "I'm sorry if I offended anyone" was pretty weak, but, yes,...a start.
However, as time has passed, he's gotten more and more cocky. I posted his statements yesterday--saying the stories are "dirty politics that Davis is known for"...ridiculing the women he offended...making a joke about it really being women coming on to him and his (natural male response) being exaggerated and misinterpreted....
Just more and more "good ol' boy-ism" as far as I can see. Crude, vulgar, boorish, tacky. Lots of rationalization. Lots of shifting the blame.
Nope, not impressed in the slightest.
Apart from the (very important) issue of consent, to me, that is a huge contrast between Clinton and Schwarzenegger's conduct.
Clinton got up in-front of us all and proclaimed "I did not have sex with that woman Monica Lewinsky" something which he denied for 8 months, that is until DNA proved the truth...
Was there a pattern of Clinton having sex with interns? Or was Monica the only woman Clinton has ever approached? So when Clinton Denys something (and we know he lied about Monica) it must be true. But when Schwarzenegger Denys something he is boorish.
Now Schwarzenegger did not flat out denying all the allegations, he is saying some are true and some are false or exaggerated. Are you claiming none of the accusations could possibly be politically motivated?
SRW,
A couple of points....
Clinton said he did not "have sex" with her, meaning "have intercourse". Some of us might have a broader definition of "having sex" than his, but many also share his feeling that "intercourse = having sex". I'm sure someone here will disagree vehemently about this, but I didn't think that was even a lie. (In addition to being completely and utterly irrelevant to anything of any importance to the nation whatsoever....)
What makes you think there was a "pattern"? Not a single other person, intern or otherwise, has claimed that he did. (Unlike the barrage of women with negative Arnold experiences to relate....)
Actually, SRW, if you read the record, she approached him.
Its not the AS denial that is boorish (though he's developing that quality in it as time goes by)...its his actions that are boorish. Did you read all these articles, including the latest today?
Can you really keep rationalizing that (1) women are just making it all up, or (2) its really "no big deal"?
I just can't understand what you're thinking about this, SRW, and why this isn't more appalling to you. Maybe you can explain?
more Schwarzenegger
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
Is it just me, or should someone who actually uses the name "E.Laine" have the crap slapped out of them?
michaellee
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2002
- Messages
- 633
quotes all originally posted by Clancie
Yet in the AS matter, Clancie defends AS accusers with statements including:
So, Clinton's accusers, the ones who came forward and testified in a lawsuit, were lying or misunterstood Clinton's advances.
And Clinton's accusers, the ones who did not come forward, should have, and because they did not, this lets Clinton off the hook because there is no pattern of behavior.
But, AS accusers, the ones who came forward only in a LA Times interview without filing lawsuits, are all telling the truth and all completely comprehended what AS behavior consisted of.
And they did not file lawsuits because of the fear of retribution, humiliation, investigation, or they may look like bimbos trying to get attention.
Well Clancie, you can't have it both ways, based on who the accused person is or what party he belongs to. AS accusers do not file lawsuits and thats ok, but the Clinton accusers not coming forward prove no pattern of behavior and his innocence.
And those who did testify in a lawsuit against Clinton were subjegated to retribution, humiliation, and being called bimbos- of course only by the defenders of Clinton, like Clancie, who only believe this if the accused is Bill Clinton, and then use this as the defense of those not filing lawsuits against AS. Typical liberal thinking.
Is the fear of retribution, humiliation, and investigation greater coming from, lets say, the President of the United States, or a popular movie star?
I don't think it would matter to those supporting Clinton to this day. They just will not let their partisan politics allow them to see their sheer hypocrisy when it comes to how they view these two men's actions.
I can provide a different scenario-
If Clinton's accusers had not testified in a lawsuit and made their charges public only in a newspaper article, then Clancie and the rest of the Clinton supporters would have been crying that if these women's charges had any merit, they would file a lawsuit or otherwise they are complete right-wing rhetoric and just another attempt to get Clinton out of the White House.
But because Clinton's accusers did testify during the PJones lawsuit, this made them all liars, or misunderstood what took place.
But AS accusers who did not file lawsuits and only made their charges public in a newspaper article, their charges are completely valid and should not be discredited because of the lack of a lawsuit. After all, they shouldn't have to go through the humilation and retribution they will surely face from the right-wingers.
If AS accusers actually filed lawsuits against him, Clancie and the Clinton supporters would then use the following statements to support these poor, sexually assaulted victims of AS:
"Why would these women file lawsuits, put themselves through this ordeal of being humilitated and called bimbos, if what they say is not true?"
Clancie's defense of Clinton is based on the fact that there should of been more women to come forward reporting similar experiences, and that the women were not credible or just misunderstood.
Yet in the AS matter, Clancie defends AS accusers with statements including:
So, Clinton's accusers, the ones who came forward and testified in a lawsuit, were lying or misunterstood Clinton's advances.
And Clinton's accusers, the ones who did not come forward, should have, and because they did not, this lets Clinton off the hook because there is no pattern of behavior.
But, AS accusers, the ones who came forward only in a LA Times interview without filing lawsuits, are all telling the truth and all completely comprehended what AS behavior consisted of.
And they did not file lawsuits because of the fear of retribution, humiliation, investigation, or they may look like bimbos trying to get attention.
Well Clancie, you can't have it both ways, based on who the accused person is or what party he belongs to. AS accusers do not file lawsuits and thats ok, but the Clinton accusers not coming forward prove no pattern of behavior and his innocence.
And those who did testify in a lawsuit against Clinton were subjegated to retribution, humiliation, and being called bimbos- of course only by the defenders of Clinton, like Clancie, who only believe this if the accused is Bill Clinton, and then use this as the defense of those not filing lawsuits against AS. Typical liberal thinking.
Is the fear of retribution, humiliation, and investigation greater coming from, lets say, the President of the United States, or a popular movie star?
I don't think it would matter to those supporting Clinton to this day. They just will not let their partisan politics allow them to see their sheer hypocrisy when it comes to how they view these two men's actions.
I can provide a different scenario-
If Clinton's accusers had not testified in a lawsuit and made their charges public only in a newspaper article, then Clancie and the rest of the Clinton supporters would have been crying that if these women's charges had any merit, they would file a lawsuit or otherwise they are complete right-wing rhetoric and just another attempt to get Clinton out of the White House.
But because Clinton's accusers did testify during the PJones lawsuit, this made them all liars, or misunderstood what took place.
But AS accusers who did not file lawsuits and only made their charges public in a newspaper article, their charges are completely valid and should not be discredited because of the lack of a lawsuit. After all, they shouldn't have to go through the humilation and retribution they will surely face from the right-wingers.
If AS accusers actually filed lawsuits against him, Clancie and the Clinton supporters would then use the following statements to support these poor, sexually assaulted victims of AS:
"Why would these women file lawsuits, put themselves through this ordeal of being humilitated and called bimbos, if what they say is not true?"
michaellee
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2002
- Messages
- 633
In the early 1900's, the Southern Pacific Railroad, and several other companies, had substantial influences over most of the California politic. One candidate for governor, Hiram Johnson, campaigned mostly against corruption, promised to get rid of the powerful companies political influence over the state, and won the election due to the public's hatred of the system.
It was Johnson who lobbied for a statewide recall measure to give the California citizens the right to recall what he labeled "a recalcitrant official." The California recall law was adopted and ratified as part the state Constitution in 1911.
It was Johnson who lobbied for a statewide recall measure to give the California citizens the right to recall what he labeled "a recalcitrant official." The California recall law was adopted and ratified as part the state Constitution in 1911.
michaellee (and anyone else who shares the apparent viewpoint that AS did no wrong--there seem to be many!)....
Let's forget about Clinton. Even if he did as you said, he certainly was legally investigated over it for several years, it cost a lot of $$$, he was humiliated around the world, and on and on. The "price to pay" may not have been one that you wanted for him, but he did "pay a price", guilty or no.
So...let's forget Clinton for now--its old news anyway--and look at California.
What about Arnold? What's the argument his supporters are making? That these women are making it all up?
I don't see why we'd think they're lying when even AS doesn't totally deny what has been said--nor is he able to distinguish for us which he did and which he did not do, although he denies "some".
So, why should he get a "pass"? Do you think the behavior described just doesn't matter? Or that they're lying? Or do his supporters want a Republican governor so badly that they're willing to look the other way on judging right and wrong when it concerns him?
I hope someone can help out here. I don't understand how these things can just be "dismissed". If 15 women came out to say this about Bustamante, and he couldn't deny it, would you still feel essentially that "it doesn't matter"?
Let's forget about Clinton. Even if he did as you said, he certainly was legally investigated over it for several years, it cost a lot of $$$, he was humiliated around the world, and on and on. The "price to pay" may not have been one that you wanted for him, but he did "pay a price", guilty or no.
So...let's forget Clinton for now--its old news anyway--and look at California.
What about Arnold? What's the argument his supporters are making? That these women are making it all up?
I don't see why we'd think they're lying when even AS doesn't totally deny what has been said--nor is he able to distinguish for us which he did and which he did not do, although he denies "some".
So, why should he get a "pass"? Do you think the behavior described just doesn't matter? Or that they're lying? Or do his supporters want a Republican governor so badly that they're willing to look the other way on judging right and wrong when it concerns him?
I hope someone can help out here. I don't understand how these things can just be "dismissed". If 15 women came out to say this about Bustamante, and he couldn't deny it, would you still feel essentially that "it doesn't matter"?
davefoc
Philosopher
Clancie said:
Clancie this is complete, unadulterated crap. Clinton lied by any possible definition of the word. Immediately after he said the above he went on to say that he hadn't been alone with her, eliminating any possible semantic defense. His meaning was exact and exactly a lie. That is why the judge fined him and that is why he lost his license to practice law for a period of time.
Repeating this laughable defense suggests that you indeed are using a double standard.
Personally, I think it more likely than not that Schwarxenegger behaved badly and perhaps may have been guilty of what I suspect would be called misdemeanor sexual battery. I am sorry about that. I am sorry that the person I am voting for is guilty of something like that. I also agree that mostly anonymous people coming out days before an election are not entirely credible. If we are to give too much credibility to people like this then our entire election process could be held hostage by a few activists who decide to make last minute unfounded charges.
Who exactly would you vote for in this election? Bustamante, awash in Indian gaming money, a member of a racist organization who can't give a straight answer to whether he disavows the most racist statements of that organization.
Perhaps instead Gray Davis. A governor who has led California to the brink of disaster with incompetence and a complete inability to stand up to a legislature that have spent like "drunken sailors" according to the most liberal publication in Orange County. What are you going to say to the thousands of workers who lose there jobs because of an out of control worker's comp system designed to make rich trial lawyers and medical providers?
Clancie this is complete, unadulterated crap. Clinton lied by any possible definition of the word. Immediately after he said the above he went on to say that he hadn't been alone with her, eliminating any possible semantic defense. His meaning was exact and exactly a lie. That is why the judge fined him and that is why he lost his license to practice law for a period of time.
Repeating this laughable defense suggests that you indeed are using a double standard.
Personally, I think it more likely than not that Schwarxenegger behaved badly and perhaps may have been guilty of what I suspect would be called misdemeanor sexual battery. I am sorry about that. I am sorry that the person I am voting for is guilty of something like that. I also agree that mostly anonymous people coming out days before an election are not entirely credible. If we are to give too much credibility to people like this then our entire election process could be held hostage by a few activists who decide to make last minute unfounded charges.
Who exactly would you vote for in this election? Bustamante, awash in Indian gaming money, a member of a racist organization who can't give a straight answer to whether he disavows the most racist statements of that organization.
Perhaps instead Gray Davis. A governor who has led California to the brink of disaster with incompetence and a complete inability to stand up to a legislature that have spent like "drunken sailors" according to the most liberal publication in Orange County. What are you going to say to the thousands of workers who lose there jobs because of an out of control worker's comp system designed to make rich trial lawyers and medical providers?