# Republicans: Explain this to me **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 7, 2003, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080 "2003-10-07T16:07:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2003, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/61 "2003-10-08T13:20:00Z")
SPOOFE continues his winning ways with > [@](#): > > “Capabilities” and “plans” are not synonymous, Illiterate. I was responding to the claim that the “best” that California can come up with is “Conan the Barbarian”, a comment that shows a gross Ignorance of Arnold’s off-screen exploits. Well, I suppose I could pop off with some comment about how you started off saying “capabilities” and now you’re saying “exploits” and follow up with a snarky comment about how the two are not synonymous, but I shall pass. Instead I shall point out, Illiterate, that one of the rather more important “capabilities” of being a leader is the capability to PLAN what one shall do with one’s leadership. I guess I should have made that more explicit initially. Please forgive me for overestimating your intellect. Rest assured that won’t happen again. > [@](#): > > Then you lack the ability to read. The capabilities I referred to are those other than his acting ability, which is what Munch implied with his post. Interesting that you place his capability to be governor outside the set of “those other than his acting ability.” I don’t have a dog. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2003, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/62 "2003-10-08T13:45:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sofa King \* > \*\*What set me off there, **Shodan** , is that O’Reilly’s statement fairly bleeds feigned innocence. > > O’Reilly claims, “Talking points has never seen a newspaper try to destroy someone as aggressively as the Times is doing.” Were it not for the vagaries of subjectivity, that’s damn near a lie. > > O’Reilly full-well knows that the conservative press, of which he is an integral part, has a long and famous track record of billionaire-sponsored dirt-digging, character assassination, and smearing, far more virulent than what the LA Times is doing, and against a far more important public official. \*\* Fair enough. I would guess that O’Reilly’s point is that what the L.A.Times tried to do to Schwarzenegger was worse than what Scaife did to Clinton. Although I think we would agree that this is a subjective judgement. From my point of view, digging up evidence that Clinton was a liar and a sexual harasser was not so much “character assassination” as straight biography. Scaife had the money and the determination to push for revelations about Clinton that the mainstream media were determined to ignore. Schwarzenegger has at least made some attempt at an apology, and I am not aware of any California equivalent of James Carville making the rounds of the talk shows referring to the women accusing Schwarzenegger as “trailer trash”. I am currently reading a book called “Truth at All Costs”, about Ken Starr and his investigation of the various Clinton scandals. You want to talk about smearing and character assassination, read about what the White House did to Starr. I will see if starting a thread in GD about it is worthwhile, once I finish the book. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2003, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/63 "2003-10-08T15:44:10Z")
“Evidence”? Where? How the _White House_ smeared _Starr_? Aw, forget it, you’re a lost cause. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2003, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/64 "2003-10-08T18:13:05Z")
> [@](#): > > “Evidence”? Where? In the book, actually. As I said, I haven’t finished it yet. Interesting that you characterize anyone who reads books critical of the Clinton White House as “a lost cause” before knowing exactly what the books say. Feel free to not particpate in any thread I start. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2003, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/65 "2003-10-08T18:54:22Z")
Wow, you’re reading a _book_? Do let us know how it turns out, and how well you colored inside the lines. Dude, the point is that you had your mind made up about the answer before even shoplifting it. Evidence for that is your failure to mention any other possibility, here or elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2003, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/66 "2003-10-08T18:57:42Z")
I hope Arnold does a good job as governor, though given the mess at the state and local level, the odds are against him. But putting aside the politics and the election, if Schwarzenegger really did assault those women, I do hope they press forward and kick his ass. There’s no excuse for handwaving nonconsentual sexual assault, IMO, regardless of party affiliation, celebrity status, or blood type. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2003, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/67 "2003-10-08T19:34:53Z")
For good or ill, the statute of limitations has tolled for any criminal charges relating to any of the incidents thus far alleged. Generally I think civil SOLs run about the same amount of time as criminal ones, so the alleged victims don’t have any legal recourse. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2003, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/68 "2003-10-08T20:08:23Z")
Well, **Shodan** , I can’t argue with you about the subjectivity. And I checked on that book, too. It looks pretty interesting, and I’m happy to report that it isn’t published by Regnery. I might just take a look at it myself. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2003, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/69 "2003-10-08T21:29:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Otto \* > \*\*For good or ill, the statute of limitations has tolled for any criminal charges relating to any of the incidents thus far alleged. Generally I think civil SOLs run about the same amount of time as criminal ones, so the alleged victims don’t have any legal recourse. \*\* My understanding was that while some were indeed a long time ago, some were as recent as 2000, in which case if it was an indictable act, SOL may not have run out. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2003, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/70 "2003-10-08T22:06:38Z")
re: the whole “I didn’t Inhale” business… am I the only one who thinks that Clinton is telling the truth about that? It strikes me as far more likely that, as a relatively straight-laced college student, Clinton tried to smoke Pot once and didn’t have the guts to really follow through with it, and then told the truth about it, than that a man who even his enemies admit is a very intelligent master politician came up with such a staggeringly idiotic lie. And there are people who manage to go to college and become adults without ever smoking pot. Myself for one. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2003, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/71 "2003-10-08T23:26:12Z")
> [@](#): > > My understanding was that while some were indeed a long time ago, some were as recent as 2000, in which case if it was an indictable act, SOL may not have run out. I was going by several reports which indicated the SOL had run for everything that had thus far been alleged. I tried to find specifics in [The California Code](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html) but lost interest trying to wade through it to find what offense Arnold could be charged with and then figure out the SOL for it. I do, however, continue to be amused by SOL being the abbreviation for both “statute of limitations” and “shit out of luck.” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/72 "2003-10-09T01:18:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MaxTheVool \* > \*\*re: the whole “I didn’t Inhale” business… am I the only one who thinks that Clinton is telling the truth about that? It strikes me as far more likely that, as a relatively straight-laced college student, Clinton tried to smoke Pot once and didn’t have the guts to really follow through with it, and then told the truth about it, than that a man who even his enemies admit is a very intelligent master politician came up with such a staggeringly idiotic lie. > > And there are people who manage to go to college and become adults without ever smoking pot. Myself for one. \*\* He said in his MTV interview that he _tried_ to inhale but the basically started choking. That happens to almost everybody when they take their first hit of weed. I find it perfectly believable. He still shouldn’t have said it, though. It sounded evasive and weaselly. He usually had a better political radar than that. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/73 "2003-10-09T17:30:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by toque \* > \*\*Why were Clinton’s sexual adventures such a big deal while Schwarzenegger’s are not? Why was so much made of Clinton’s smoking pot. while it’s apparently okay that Bush did blow? > > I’m seriously looking for some insight here, but thought it was safest to post in the pit. \*\* I think the big deal is that the Dems didn`t chastise Clinton but are willing to burn Arnold for lessor crimes. The Repubs go after Clinton and then sort of defend Arnold, but not to the point that the Dems defended Clinton. Rebubs, Clinton = bad Arnold = not so bad Dems, Clinton = Did nothing wrong Arnold = If the Pubs think what Clinton did was wrong then why aren`t they hanging Arnold You can`t expect partisons to be bi-partison. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/74 "2003-10-09T19:03:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by whuckfistle \* > I think the big deal is that the Dems didn`t chastise Clinton but are willing to burn Arnold for lessor crimes. Whereas the Republicans think that consentual sex between two adults warrants a $6 million investigation, but sexual assault with a nonconsenting adult is no big deal. Or that lying under oath (about consentual sex) is worth impeachment, but lying (not under oath) to kill 15,000+ Iraqis is no problem. > [@](#): > > The Repubs go after Clinton and then sort of defend Arnold, but not to the point that the Dems defended Clinton. Look up the meaning of the word “consentual” sometime. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/75 "2003-10-09T20:02:31Z")
Damn you, **toque** - I was going to start a thread on this very topic. 😉 Sorry, folks, but I agree with the OP here. I saw more Republicans gnashing their teeth over Clinton’s adultery long before he lied under oath (not even mentioning the other issues they were so rabid about investigating). The air was thick with Republican Moral Outrage, and it almost cost us a sitting President with their tenacious doggedness. Now we have Schwarzenegger with his own set of accusations, and what happens? The Republican party throws their support behind him and sweeps him into office. So where’s the Republican Moral Outrage now? Conveniently forgotten, IMHO. And of course I’m biased. I see the recall as spurious, a few wealthy conservatives with sour grapes over an election only 11 months ago won fair and square by a Democrat throwing millions into a campaign to recall a governor who had done nothing illegal or egregious enough worth recalling him before his term was up (just like every other elected official). Did he make mistakes? Of course he did. Was he the best governor ever? Debatable. Did he do anything illegal? No. Was this recall justified? IMHO, not at all. But, hey, now we have a governor who has likely harassed women for the past 25 years, in office with the support of his party, as opposed to us Democrats who have an ex-President who was left with a legacy of embarassment and impeachment because of that same party. And they say Democrats are hypocrites? :rolleyes: Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/76 "2003-10-09T20:02:45Z")
**rjung** , not that I disagree with any of your points at all, but could you ask that s/he look up the meaning of the word [consensual](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=consensual) instead? Now then: > [@](#): > > I think the big deal is that the Dems didn`t chastise Clinton but are willing to burn Arnold for lessor crimes. Leaving aside the “lying under oath” for the moment (because, if there is any honesty on the other side of this discussion, it will be acknowledged that the howls for the head of Bill Clinton started _well_ before he was under oath), Arnold is accused of sexually battering about a dozen women. Clinton was accused by Paula Jones of [exposing himself](http://www.angelfire.com/wa/starreport/pjdepo.html#hotel) for a few minutes. He was accused by Kathleen Willey of [kissing her and touching her breast](http://www.statenews.com/editionsspring98/031698/p1_clinton.html). Not to minimize what Clinton allegedly did, but stacking the two against each other, Clinton’s “crimes” are the lesser. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/77 "2003-10-09T21:51:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scumpup \* > \*\*Mainly because deep down all Republicans are actually monarchists. What they really want is a king and they see themselves as aristocracy. Now you must understand that historically, things that were perfectly okay for the upper class to do were forbidden to the rabble. > Or maybe it’s just that your average Republican is a hypocritical pus-bag. \*\* I read this when it was first posted, and it’s stuck with me. The more I think about it, the more I realize it’s true, and the more it tickles me. Hee hee. ---
**Author:** ![toque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9e8a1a/32.png) [@toque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toque)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/78 "2003-10-09T22:27:20Z")
Sorry, **Esprix**. The sad part is, I actually thought I could get some reasonable explanation here. I understand politics is politics, and you attack your opponent wherever you think him weak, but I honestly believed a fair amount of the right wing’s outrage over Clinton’s adultery (and we all know it started well before he had the gall to lie about a blow job) was sincere. And I’m extremely surprised to hear not a peep from the right regarding Schwarzenegger, and I just can’t see any reason or rationalization that makes sense. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/79 "2003-10-10T11:51:31Z")
Very funny people. You`re forgetting that Clinton did his deeds WHILE in office. Arnold MAY (these are allegations at this point) have done his deeds during events where people were partying, drinking, etc. Since we don`t know yet we can`t say for sure. He probably had women fawning over him all the time, and we wasn`t an elected official either. Saint Clinton; Attacked the character of the women involved by saying they were lying. Attacked the character of the women involved by saying they were known for sexual misconduct themselves, even though this information was irrelevant to our judgment of his actions. Asked other personal friends and professional associates (like Betty Curry) to lie to back him up. Lied to personal friends and professional associates (like press secretaries) when they did not know the full truth themselves, insuring their public humiliation when these lies were eventually exposed. Argued about definitions of precise terms (for example, “sex” and “perjury”) once evidence of wrongdoing was established, suggesting that the technical nature of the wrongdoing was more important than the fact that it was wrong. Argued that he was not in control of his actions due to a form of personality disorder or mental illness (sex addiction). Prayed, or at least invited ministers to the White House to help him get through this personal crisis. We`ll wait to see how Arnold handles this before we criticise him too much. Hang on to the tires and the gasoline for the time being. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/80 "2003-10-10T12:10:17Z")
May I also remind you of short memory, the following; Clinton; “lied under oath to a grand jury,” “lied under oath at a civil deposition,” “attempted to obstruct justice,” and “engaged in a pattern of conduct that was inconsistent with his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.” On the day after the independent counsel’s report was released, The Washington Post in its lead story described the report as follows: "President Clinton betrayed his ‘constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws’ by engaging in a pattern of ‘abundant and calculating’ lies regarding his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky, prosecutors charged in an impeachment report overflowing with graphic accounts of sexual escapades in the Oval Office suite. “The extraordinary 453-page document prepared by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr and made public yesterday by the House of Representatives accused Clinton of becoming sexually involved with ‘a young subordinate employee’ and then orchestrating a coverup campaign using aides, friends and resources of the White House. In all, it listed 11 possible grounds for impeachment, including perjury, witness tampering, obstruction of justice and abuse of power.” [The Story](http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1998/perjury-lo.htm) * * * And to use the term “Sexual Battery” to define what Arnold did? Might be stretching it a bit… A statement from the man; “So I want to say to you, yes, I have behaved badly sometimes. Yes, it is true that I was on rowdy movie sets, and I have done things that were not right, which I thought then was playful. But I now recognize that I have offended people. And to those people that I have offended, I want to say to them, I am deeply sorry about that, and I apologize.” Did we even get a hint of that from Clinton? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080.md?page=5)