Heh! That was exactly my thought the first time I heard Ahnold was running!
Personally, I still think getting rid of the “Psychoreligious Right” is something way overdue, the big fear now is that Arnie going down without the support of them (if the election is close) will mean that they will forever remind the Republicans that they need them more than they need them, turning the California Republicans into a bigger failure in the future.
I shudder to think the concessions they will give to the fundamentalists in exchange for their “decisive” support if that happens.
Um, I don’t think neo-cons are what you think they are. But that depends on who defines the term.
Originally it referred to ex-liberals (New Conservatives, duh) like Jean Kirkpatrick. Kennedy Democrats who wanted a vigorous defense and growth oriented tax cuts.
By the early 90s certain people (Buchanan) were using neo-con as an epithet. With the end of the Cold War, ideological purity became a possible goal. Neo-cons were Israel’s ‘amen corner’ and free traders selling out our future.
It seems the term neo-con has gone mainstream quite recently. And to not mean anything! These aren’t Religious Right fundys. Putting Bush, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz in one category is simplistic. But you can’t argue word use, no proscriptive definitions… what does it mean to you at this time?
I hear Chris Matthews ref neo-cons and I don’t know what he means. When Pat Buchanan says it I think he means Jews.
Uh, you do remember that he was impeached because he lied in a trial brought against him for sexual harassment, right? And that several other women have accused him of the same thing?
I don’t have a dog in this hunt - I thought the attacks against Clinton were overblown. But let’s not revise history. The charge against Clinton wasn’t just that he got a blowjob in the White House. There were serious charges of sexual misconduct levelled against him, and they went a hell of a lot farther than innuendo about copping a feel of a reporter. In the Paula Jones case, I believe he was accused of dropping his drawers and waggling Mr. Happy at her.
And yes, I know it’s not proven. But neither are the charges against Arnold. So let’s not be too righteous here about the rights of women’s bodies - the left abandoned all their feminist ideals when it came to Clinton’s behaviour. Where they used to claim that it was wrong for men in a position of power to take advantage of female subordinates in the workplace, they excused it under Clinton, who has the most powerful job at all. Where they used to recoil at the thought of having a woman’s sexual past brought into a trial, they reveled in it with Paula.
When was Clinton ever charged with “sexual misconduct?” Oh yeah…never.
The PJ lawsuit was tossed for lack of merit and it did not involve a criminal charge. She was clearly put up to inventing the story and filing the lawsuit by the religious right. Nothing in her story was ever proven and given the unbelievable skankiness of the accuser and the utter absurdity of the allegation I dismiss her story out of hand as having any merit.
He got his dick sucked in the White House. BFD. What’s the point of being POTUS if you can’t get your dick sucked in the White House?
Do you really not see a difference between consensual, legal activities and harassment? That’s what you have to do to draw a comparison there. Same with Packwood, before you bring him up. I’ll raise you Henry Hyde’s “youthful indiscretion” if you like.
Sam, you really ought to review the basis of the Jones suit before you spout any more falsehoods about it. The charge was job discrimination, about which there was no evidence or even allegation of evidence, not sexual harassment. Please also review who the lawyers were who filed it for her, and under what circumstances.
As for Arnold, if any of the harassment charges has substance, the women involved will come forward. If they don’t, then it’s nobody else’s business but Maria’s.
Quote of the day from Bill Maher: “At last, there’s a candidate who can explain Bush’s civil rights policies in the original German.”
Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the Jones suit, or of who she retained as counsel, she was as entitled to open, honest and non-perjurious discovery as any other plaintiff initiating a civil suit in our legal system.
For good reason, too: many lawsuits sound quite frivolous at the time of filing, but after sufficient discovery are proved to have merit. Absent a crystal ball, a court cannot determine whether a properly-pleaded lawsuit (i.e., one that alleges a redressable harm) will have merit until after the discovery phase is brought to a close (either by a successful motion for summary judgment or by the start of trial proceedings). Until that time, plaintiffs are entitled to have their inquiries answered truthfully. Perjurious answers effectively deny the plaintiff her right to have her claim heard fairly.
The essential point I am making is unchanged. The claim that accusations against Clinton had no merit because they involved “private, consensual acts” is refuted by the fact that he was actually brought into court by a woman who felt that he made unwanted advanced towards her. Was I correct that the charge was that he exposed the little President to her?
If so, doesn’t that make the liberals who are now attacking Arnold on hearsay very hypocritical, in light of the fact that those same people thought that it was outrageous that Clinton should actually have to defend himself in a court of law?
It’s amazing the flips and twists the feminists have done in the last decade or two. Clarence Thomas puts a pubic hair on a can for a joke? He’s an animal who is clearly unfit for public life. Bob Packwood gets caught in a sex scandal? String him up, and kick him out. Women file sexual harassment suits against their bosses? Clearly, it’s an abuse of power for a man to make advances on a woman when he’s in a position of authority over her.
But then oh oh! Clinton gets caught. Wait a minute - it’s the woman’s fault. That young intern is an adult. If she wants to give in to pressure from the freaking President of the United States, so what? That’s her choice, right? No power issues here. No sir. And Paula Jones is trailer trash to be made fun of. Obviously, she’s either a tool of the right wing conspiracy, or just out for money. We’ll convict her in the court of public opinion without a trial.
So the standards for sexual conduct have clearly changed. But then… Oh oh! Another Repubican. Suddenly, gossip is elevated to high crimes. Various anonymous people say he may have copped a feel! This man must not be elected.
What I was saying is: that at a time when Californians need massive governmental policy changes, and need candidates to discuss about fixing the deficit, the energy crisis, and rising gas prices, the reasons that brought this recall in the first place; the media is failing them big time, oversaturating the airwaves over a 1977 interview in a porn mag. This will do, if anything, enhance Arnold’s rep in this day and age.
What I find even sadder is that some of us Dopers would talk of this extensively as well, instead of problems in California.
Sex and drugs and other addictions hurt your political chances if you are a Democrat, not a republican. Just ask the drunk and AWOL cocaine abuser-in-chief and gambling addict (and perennial loser) Bill Bennett.
Sam, I normally don’t repeat myself, but this apparently didn’t get through: “Do you really not see a difference between consensual, legal activities and harassment? That’s what you have to do to draw a comparison there.”
Dewey and Apos, no substantive disagreement with what you’ve said, just a reminder to be careful about context when making judgments.
It’s only perjury if it’s material. The Lewisnsky blow job wasn’t material and wasn’t even strictly dishonest. The words “oral sex” were specifically crossed out on the written definition given to Clinton giving the impression that he was only being asked about intercourse. He was exceedingly parsimonious with the truth but it was not an explicit falsehood.
Anyway, it wasn’t material. PJ was simply not entitled to any answer at all to that question as it was not relevant to the case.
And let’s face it, that whole thing was constructed as a perjury trap to begin with. None of those lawyers gave a shit about Paula Jones they just wanted to get BC to deny getting a blow job. It was all just a sleazy political maneuver to try to GET Bill Clinton any way they could.
BTW, I don’t think Arnold’s interview should mean anything at all and don’t think the dems should waste any time trying to make a hay out of it. Hell, I was a HUMONGOUS dick when I was in my early twenties. God knows what I might have said back then. People grow up. As Bill Maher said last night on Larry King, there are much better reasons not to vote for Arnold Schwarzeneggar than this interview.