I see I'm quoted this morning in
a Wall Street Journal piece by Jason L. Riley, who wonders why the recent news about sexual harassment has been "hyper-politicized":
How did we get to this point? Ann Althouse, the University of Wisconsin Law School professor emerita and prolific blogger, has offered an explanation as plausible as any, and she contends that it has a lot to do with political expediency. "My hypothesis is that liberals -- including nearly everyone in the entertainment business -- suppressed concern about sexual harassment to help Bill Clinton," she wrote in an October blog post. "Giving him cover gave cover to other powerful men, and the cause of women's equality in the workplace was set back 20 years." She added: "Are these allegations coming out now because Hillary Clinton lost the election and the time for covering for Bill Clinton is over at long last?" Good question.
If Ms. Althouse is right, Mr. Clinton's predatory behavior -- and the left's response to it -- didn't just make Mr. Weinstein's antics more acceptable than they otherwise might have been. The former president also greased the skids for someone like Donald Trump. Post-Clinton, a presidential candidate's character became much more of a secondary consideration for voters. This is one reason so many were willing to look past Mr. Trump's misbehavior on the campaign trail and are still willing to give him a pass today.
A different take — politicized in the other direction — would be what the commenter Hari said in the comments at my blog post:
Is the corollary: now that Trump is president, the Left has a vested interest in rediscovering sexual harassment? Is this battlefield prep for future stories about Trump? Does giving Harvey Weinstein the death penalty make it easier to do the same for Trump?
पोस्ट्स
१९८ टिप्पण्या:
I think it's wrongheaded. Sexual harassment is acceptable behavior in reality, unless there's a political reason to use it against the right.
It's virtue signalling held in reserve.
It's a political discovery, not a moral discovery.
The meat is strong but the spirit is weak.
1. Jason got the Latin correct.
2. Restated, if Hillary would have won NONE of this stuff comes out. None of it. The Hillary Clinton Administration would crush anyone who spoke out. Ronan Farrow would have been spoken to in no uncertain terms.
Hillary’s loss was as important as Lincoln’s win.
I would add that Hillary owed favors to many foreign countries. They paid for results. Russia and the Kingdom at the top of the list.
The WSJ link is text not URL, not that a URL would help because the WSJ lets me see nothing these days. Fortunately it's completely written for woman now so it doesn't matter.
A problem all along has been the lack of a clear definition of sexual harassment: when does it cross over from annoying/rude/inappropriate to a firing offense or a misdemeanor? The felony line is clear enough however. Some of the conduct we hear about is much more serious than others. There's a tendency to blur the lines between a crass attempt at a pick-up and assault.
Has Trump ever paid out any money for accusations of sexual harassment/assault?
Clinton, Weinstein, Fox, and O'Reilly have. Admission of guilt.
Ronan Farrow is the true hero of the story.
Slightly different take:
Trumps sexual comments caught on video, and how the Left weaponized that and failed against him,increased awareness of the issue, and since he won it was a big Cause Celebre of the Resistance.
I believe that created the atmosphere that allowed publication by the New Yorker of the Weinstein accusations.
Would it have been published if Hillary won? I’m not sure. This may have also been a slight Bernie supporters hitting back at the Clintons, but I’m not sure. I don’t know enough about the New Yorker.
Yay Althouse!
Last night, CNN started airing Tom Steyer ads where he insists lawmakers impeach Trump.
Is the corollary: now that Trump is president, the Left has a vested interest in rediscovering sexual harassment? Is this battlefield prep for future stories about Trump? Does giving Harvey Weinstein the death penalty make it easier to do the same for Trump?
Part of me thinks that that would be giving idiots too much credit (“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”). I think this latest sex predator which hunt /purge is just the latest cultural cataclysm of our hyperpolitized times. Events like this, along with stuff like the election of Trump, and the reaction to the election of Trump, and the reaction to the reaction to the election of Trump, are all symptoms of a deeper conflict.
The real outcome of all of this is that men in all fields and in all situations are now going to be much more careful to not go anywhere near the line where their behavior can be defined as sexual harassment. If they do they face the possibility of being humiliated and destroyed. This is a good thing and is now quickly reshaping our culture in a more equitable way.
All this blather, ironically, assumes that the Left is loaded up w/ scruples.
Why couldn't they just support their own and pillory their opposition? Are they so dumb as to not know that they're not supposed to use the radical rules against themselves?
Maybe so.
This is a good thing and is now quickly reshaping our culture in a more equitable way.
Porn and sex robots.
This is a good thing and is now quickly reshaping our culture in a more equitable way.
Hysterical women aren't worth the trouble and risk; it's best to avoid hiring and socializing with them.
Is sex robot design a male-dominated industry. Too early to tell. Lots of engineering.
Maybe they'll have to let women in. Then the sex harassment situation there is a question.
It would be a mark of failure to court a live woman.
Blogger Now I Know! said...
The real outcome of all of this is that men in all fields and in all situations are now going to be much more careful to not go anywhere near the line where their behavior can be defined as sexual harassment. If there do they face the possibility of being humiliated and destroyed. This is a good thing and is now quickly reshaping our culture in a more equitable way.
This is an interesting idea. To the contrary, I think it will make men much less likely to hire women, and much less likely to interact with them in the workplace. I do not view this as an improvement, but rather a virulent out-break of neo-Puritanism.
Wikipedia (I know, I know) is currently at "Sexual harassment refers to persistent and unwanted sexual advances, typically in the workplace, where the consequences of refusing are potentially very disadvantageous to the victim." What Kevin Spacey is presently being denounced for is making a pass at another young gay man in the 1980s. If you think this ends well, I think you will not be pleased.
Andrew Cuomo's top guy in Buffalo, Sam Hoyt, under attack for $50,000 sexual harassment settlement. Hoyt, a former Dem NY state legislator, quit his $157,000/yr job.
I don't know. This has been brewing a long time. Women have constantly been dissatisfied with sex. It's endemic in any literature which dares to discuss sex at all (unless they are Fabio in a bodice ripper)
But Ms. Althouse might be onto something, but only sees a piece of the iceberg. Yes, the cognitive dissonance and the lack of spine in Feminists re Pantsless Bill has made them more neurotic than normal. And just to rub salt into the wounds, the Right has, with great delight, brought their lack of principle, spine and actual character up only about a bazillion times. So part of this is survivor guilt/backlash...mostly aimed at Conservatives (but then again, they did that to Clarence Thomas before Pantsless Bill)
But the other part is the internet. Men can seek out he most sordid of sexual images and women can SEE what some of these images are...and are appalled!
Meanwhile, women, thinking they are chatting in private in The Frisky, or Jezebel, or Pintrest, let out their innermost feelings of men and their various inadequacies...and men have been able to read them since they aren't going on over the backyard fence.
That romance has been peeled right off male/female interactions. Women seem like unsatisfiable scolds and men seem like the worst of moral degenerates.
That genie is out of the bottle. No fixing it.
Hence the Victorian swing in things. It isn't JUST about Feminists trying to make up for Clinton. But Pantless Bill was a bitter load that Feminism had to swallow just to 'keep abortion legal'. Snort. So melodramatic.
Ann is correct that it does all go back to Bill Clinton. I will add that I believe the frustration of the feminist left caused by their inability to defeat and now "resist" Trump has led them to attack any and every target of opportunity available. In short, in their unintended, long -postponed and partial honesty about the issue, they have created a political nightmare for themselves. As a prime example of the phenomenon take Ashley Judd (please). She went bonkers at the anti-Trump rally last winter - to little effect -and then the next thing you know she is lining up to condemn all Hollywood males. It's a "whack- a -mole" reaction to extreme and bitter self-hate.
Sex robots are so much easier for women. They're less visual.
""This is a good thing and is now quickly reshaping our culture in a more equitable way."
Hysterical women aren't worth the trouble and risk; it's best to avoid hiring and socializing with them."
Ha!
Right, it's bad enough that y'all can vote and drive cars. Now you don't want to be sexually harassed as part of your job?
All this blather, ironically, assumes that the Left is loaded up w/ scruples.
Why couldn't they just support their own and pillory their opposition? Are they so dumb as to not know that they're not supposed to use the radical rules against themselves?
Yes. Closer to the truth. As a strategy lefties most prefer accusing their opponents of exactly what they are trying to get away with.
Men can seek out he most sordid of sexual images and women can SEE what some of these images are...and are appalled!
Men seek out pretty normal sexual images.
Ann, you are absolutely correct: "Giving [Bill Clinton] cover gave cover to other powerful men, and the cause of women's equality in the workplace was set back 20 years."
You deserve a regular opinion column on the national media stage!
Thurber, specialist in the war between men and women, actually liked his difficult bitchy women.
Althouse would be a tediuos scold in a column.
Where she's different from a thousand other scolds is she allows pushback.
"...bitchy women."
In her day, Wurtzel was hot.
Add Dartmouth to the list of sexual exploiters Dartmouth College Professors Investigated Over Sexual Misconduct Allegations (NYT)
Why, at this point, would any male dare to talk to, work with, hire, date, stand next to a female? Thank goodness that balls always overcome brains or the race would die out. Which is not to say that these guys "research" sounds at all legitimate to me.
Whatever it means for Trump, bitching about Mike Pence's meeting rules got a lot more subdued nowadays
If the Left had any 'death penalty worthy' examples from Trump's past, we would have known about them long before now. Clinton's team knew about the Access Hollywood tape long before Trump secured the Republican nomination. It's one of the reasons the Left worked to ensure Trump would be the nominee -- they were sure they had the goods on him. So, they released the tape when it would do maximum damage. It almost worked.
Are we to believe that they kept even more damaging stories about Trump secret? Even after Trump rebounded in the polls after the Access Hollywood tape was released? That doesn't make any sense. If Trump's past included anything Weinstein-like, it would have been widely published before the election.
Oso Negro said:
I do not view this as an improvement, but rather a virulent out-break of neo-Puritanism.
Yes.
This will not end well. Expose anyone’s sexual history as told by a disgruntled participant and the narrative is likely to be devastating to the accused. Strip away the romance and/or passion and sex viewed in hindsight is not pretty. It is porn.
"Whatever it means for Trump, bitching about Mike Pence's meeting rules got a lot more subdued nowadays"
No, it's still terrible for him to setup a professional environment that limits the advancement of women by excluding them from some of the career advancement opportunities that are given to men.
If you want to have these rules for gals, make the same things apply to the guys.
Now I Know!: "The real outcome of all of this is that men in all fields and in all situations..."
Ah yes, the old "dems caught red handed so its time to "expand the discussion" to make it about everyone and society and everything so that no undue attention comes to our beloved dems" tactic.
When a republican/conservative etc is caught, its always about the republicans / conservatives ONLY and what lessons we must draw about republicans / conservatives ONLY.
This one-sided "rule" is also notably applied by the lefties to Islamic Supremacist/Christian comparisons, that is when the left isn't simply denying the islamic supremacists are doing what they are doing.
I think men in the real world have been keeping their head down for a while. There are even books like "Men on Strike" by Instawife on the subject. We've all seen cases where clumsy hapless passes have brought down the house on some guy, particularly if the media/political class is involved. Perhaps now we can recognize that as a form of projection, taking out their frustrations about the misogyny in their business (the BS open secret) on some poor guy who could have just used some counseling, not losing his job.
yes obviously if Hillary had been elected the accusations against Fox News would have never happened. More likely the patriarchal control over women has been in steady decline for some time, and the obvious aggression from men towards women less tolerated as it has been well publicized in everything from Me Too campaigns to the growing need for safe houses sheltering battered women. This is a struggle of gender power that has gone on a long time and is only politicized to the extend that some of the male abusers are politicians.
tds: "Whatever it means for Trump, bitching about Mike Pence's meeting rules got a lot more subdued nowadays"
Wrong.
The left is still insulting him and his wife over that.
Which should surprise no one, as the application of consistent standards is probably white supremacy or something.
Not to mention that the Left doesn't really believe a single thing they lecture us about (so consistency is out) and for the left history begins anew each morning so anything they said prior to today can be discarded if needed for todays narrative (political expediency).
roesch/voltaire: "yes obviously if Hillary had been elected the accusations against Fox News would have never happened."
On the contrary, those accusations would certainly have happened. Without a doubt.
The others? Not so much.
See if you can guess why.
In saying that giving Bill a pass greased the skids for Trump,
Riley overlooks the fact that there are 2 different groups of voters involved. Those who gave Bill a pass hate Trump and are convinced he's a sexual predator.
Trump’s supporters did not and have not given Bill a pass and would still love to see him held to account.
If any aspect of Bill getting a pass led to Trump, it's the rank hypocrisy and blatant double standard displayed by both Hillary and the media.
The trouble with difficult bitchy women happens when they write laws. Until then it's just normal life.
NewsSpeak dictionary 2017 version, revision J
Term: hyper-politicized
Definition: Any leftist topic or position that has been used successfully for years to attack the right, when subsequently used by the right to attack the left is "hyper-politicized".
Examples: Leftist use of sexual harassment to attack business and right leaning institutions which is then used to attack left leaning business and institutions (see Hollywood, MSNBC, etc.). Prior valid examples would include the silence of NOW and other feminist organizations during the Clinton administration.
See also: hypocrite, "reverse Alinsky"
Not just Bill Clinton - it goes back at least as far as the excessive media protection provided to the Kennedy's.
The modern world has destroyed the "village" of communal, in person social relations, and has few remaining venues where men and women can realistically evaluate each other in the real world. In the old days people knew more people directly, and could rely to a great degree on reputation, on family, and they generally saw each other growing up.
Modern anonymity doesn't permit this. How does one choose a mate from a field of thousands of strangers? Modern anonymous socializing (and especially internet matchmaking) is artificial, it rarely reveals the real person. I am glad my time was before this and I never had to go this route, and the kids have been even luckier.
The workplace is probably the best remaining place to find and evaluate suitable prospects. But this is growing more constrained every year. The cost of a perpetual witch hunt is likely to be even more mating failures than is already the case. Courtship (of the serious sort) and marriage are already extraordinarily risky.
The elephant in the living room is the ongoing demographic disaster.
Now I Know! said...
The real outcome of all of this is that men in all fields and in all situations are now going to be much more careful to not go anywhere near the line where their behavior can be defined as sexual harassment. If they do they face the possibility of being humiliated and destroyed. This is a good thing and is now quickly reshaping our culture in a more equitable way.
11/1/17, 10:03 AM
Yes indeed! All hail the new order! Women NEVER lie about harassment or rape. And if they do, what is a few destroyed lives and ruined careers in the long march to utopia!
It is well past time we outlaw rudeness. Funny thing is that when we get there, it will be leftist enclaves that are hardest hit.
This is a struggle of gender power that has gone on a long time and is only politicized to the extend that some of the male abusers are politicians.
It's political because women are using the government to attack and punish men.
rhhardin said...
Is sex robot design a male-dominated industry.
11/1/17, 10:07 AM
Not sure of the industry make-up but the customer base is FAR more female than male. Think of the vibrator as a "sex-bot" v1.0 and the newer sex dolls are just v2.0.
Does giving Harvey Weinstein the death penalty make it easier to do the same for Trump?
For every political action, there is an equal and opposite political reaction.
I think it will make men much less likely to hire women, and much less likely to interact with them in the workplace.
This. The latest moral panic makes women radioactive. Well, more radioactive. I see it at my workplace - as soon as a woman comes within earshot the conversation dies. Though to be fair it's been heading that direction for many years - when I was managing women, decades ago, my boss told me to make sure the door was always open if I was alone with a female employee.
Clinton was not impeached for sexual misconduct, but for perjury and obstruction of justice. Nevertheless, his failure to be removed by the Senate was widely seen (and more and more widely accepted as the years went on) as exoneration for any and all actions, including sexual misconduct. I know I saw it at the time as a problem moving forward, that the overall agreement that had existed around the Clarence THomas testimony (no agreement on what happened, but agreement that the alleged behavior should be taken seriously and was an impediment to holding high office) was being seriously eroded by the reaction to the Clinton behaviors. (Evidence that there was agreement on this point: google Bob Packwood).
It will be hard to renew this agreement because the behaviors of the left have made it evident to the right that Democrats' proclaimed concern about sexual misconduct (at the time of Thomas hearings) was insincere (we're "concerned" when that helps us, and we're not when it hurts us).
rhhardin said...
The WSJ link is text not URL, not that a URL would help because the WSJ lets me see nothing these days.
http://facebook.com/l.php?u=
http://facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/articles/resist-the-temptation-to-politicize-sex-scandals-1509487240
Summary: Everything is "hyper-politicized", therefore so are the so-called sex scandals (so no evidence needed or provided), even though they have involved people with differing politics.
At the end the author ignores his own free advice and politicizes his own article by talking about Trump and Mueller.
IOW pretty typical MSM clickbait/fake news.
Trumps sexual comments caught on video, and how the Left weaponized that and failed against him,increased awareness of the issue, and since he won it was a big Cause Celebre of the Resistance.
And yet what the whole episode reveals to me is:
1. NBC was perfectly happy to suppress this tape when it would have been inconvenient to their Apprentice franchise.
2. Poor Billy Bush was doing exactly what NBC wanted him to do: shmooze up the Big Star and keep him happy on set. Unfortunately, Billy is the only one who lost their job over it, which I think was unfair.
3. Someone at NBC was also banking this audiotape for future oppo research uses, proving they are DNC operatives with a News Division as their disguise (that somehow got the tape from their entertainment division, which is by definition then also part of the DNC oppo research team).
4. Because Democrats and establishment politicians all believe sincerely that they (like God) can speak things into existence, that their saying something and ordinary speechifying are somehow akin to action and actually doing something, then this pathology is easy to elucidate. They so easily conflate speech with action that they thought they could fool all of us into believing what Trump said was actually Trump doing those things he talked about on tape.
5. Unfortunately for Democrats the general public trusts them so little that the tape had almost no impact when revealed. At least not what they expected. But like I expected, a great many people were willing to point out that criticizing what Trump said without being equally and harshly critical of what Bill Clinton did is hypocritical. Trump bringing out Bill's victims to his rally's and speeches and debates really shut down the avenue of attack the Left thought they would have.
6. But the lid was coming off. And if the public was willing to now confront the fact that Bill Clinton is a dirty scum that should have been made to answer for his crimes but wasn't, then woe be the next liberal icon who is found out. And I think it was the panic that set in around Hollywood when all the videos and pleas and that stupid Academy Awards show that relentlessly flogged their "values" didn't budge the public opinion of Trump. All the pussy hats and marches didn't do a damn thing except frustrate the wymyn who had no real victims to hold up and use for their purposes. But they all knew real victims. Maybe if they told us we'd take it seriously. When the social media cascade happened it was the release of this frustration and covering up that bubbled over.
It's out of control now. And as Amber Tamblyn said, it would have been covered up in perpetuity if Hillary won, because the truth is inconvenient to all the right people.
It makes some sense to me that Hillary's defeat inspired some Dem women to say: let's reveal the extent of sexual abuse by big-time Dems associated with Hillary. We have to do something about the cover-ups, hypocrisy, etc. It makes less sense to me that there was a clever plan to bring all this back to Trump. As bosses with his kind of wealth go, is he relatively bad or relatively good? I would think relatively good.
What actually goes on behind closed doors, and how many of us can even make intelligent guesses? Even a woman who gets hit on a lot may wonder if it is "just her." I think it was Sarah Silverman talking to Norm Macdonald who said she and some female friends were talking about a possible script or screenplay, playing their real-life examples of sexual harassment for laughs. The more detail they brought out, the more they were appalled at what happened to all of them. They couldn't find it funny.
Maybe Hollywood is particularly bad because there really are a small number of very powerful bosses, and although they are supposed to think about artistic merit and profit, they can easily think there are a lot of beautiful people, if I burn this one, I'll get another. (Today the wheel has turned on Dustin Hoffman). In politics I think a lot of staffers are a bit shocked to have a kind of Veep experience--with or without sexual harassment. If it is a meritocracy, it sometimes seems that the "merit" is successfully sucking up to the right people. Does this make Hollywood's portrayal of Congressman Wilson's office in Charlie Wilson's War quite a bit less funny?
Norm Macdonald says in his podcast with Stephen Merchant (Ricky Gervais's sidekick), kind of out of the blue, that far more teachers than priests have fucked children. True?
Now I Know! said...
The real outcome of all of this is that men in all fields and in all situations are now going to be much more careful to not go anywhere near the line where their behavior can be defined as sexual harassment. If they do they face the possibility of being humiliated and destroyed. This is a good thing and is now quickly reshaping our culture in a more equitable way.
Shorter Now I Know!: Pence was right!
men in all fields and in all situations are now going to be much more careful...
You haven't been working for a large corporation in the last 20 years then. Every year we have LERN modules (Legal and Ethical something or other) that include sexual harassment training. Every freaking year. And the California mandated ones are even worse with a two-hour requirement. Which means there's a little hourglass on the screen and we must spend at least two hours every year covering the same ethical ground and best practices. Or at least have that browser window open two hours. I feel after 20 years of this I am qualified to be an expert on sexual harassment.
The practical reality is also that the "Pence Rule" is fairly common, and "leave the door open" habits apply to both sexes. I'm sure if you're in government, entertainment or journalism the "rules" have not been as widely applied as corporate America. Why are these liberal-dominated industries such cesspits of sexual harassment?
The idiot leftists weaponized sexual harassment and it blew up in their stupid faces.
So much winning!
The left mock Pence... and glorify Bill Clinton.
SNL's Bill Clinton ... "I. Am. Bulletproof."
Shorter SNL: Bill is so cool, and we like his politics, he can do whatever he wants to women.
How about just plain monkey see, monkey do journalism?
Hey, OK, but can you top this!?
Weinstein gives to democrats. he can do whatsoever he wants.
The professor deserves the credit for being the lone voice amongst feminists to condemn the Clinton mis-behavior back when he was defiling the oval office, the Presidency and the entire feminist movement.
More bullshit tossed about trump.
With Clinton, remember that we have the harassment and then we also have efforts led by Betsey Wright to destroy the women who caused Bimbo Eruptions.
That's a lot of ink to say "Fen's Law."
So all this has been going on and feminists were complaining the existence of high heels is sexist.
Why?
Re Clinton "greasing the skids" for Trump-- my first reaction to the Access Hollywood video was, "So what, Bill Clinton did worse and Hillary ran the operation to suppress the bimbo eruptions, so she is still worse than Trump." And, "That's how some people talk and act, and I don't think it's right, but I'm not hiring him to babysit my 13-yr old daughter (cf. Roman Polanski)."
i.e., not just Bill's behavior, but Hillary aiding and abetting--which is the answer to those who said that HE was the bad guy but SHE was the "wronged woman." Bullfeathers.
Anyway, Mary Jo Kopechne couldn't be reached for comment.
As for the Weinstein stuff clearing a path to go after Trump--I don't think that is a primary motivation, but it could be in the mix.
All you sex offenders out there: just hunker down and wait for the next big thing to come alonng, and this will all blow over.
Most of the most lurid scandals come from the entertainment industry. The entertainment industry was hyper politicized prior to these scandals. Can anyone name an outspoken conservative producer or star? These scandals reflect badly on the left because--Fox News excepted--they involve people with well known leftist allegiances.......Today's fresh new scandal involves a producer named Ratner. He too liked to masturbate in front of movie stars. What's up with these people?
The Dems should be talking about Trump using Mafia types to pour concrete. Nobody in Hollywood is guilty of that crime.
etbass said...
The professor deserves the credit for being the lone voice amongst feminists to condemn the Clinton mis-behavior back when he was defiling the oval office, the Presidency and the entire feminist movement.
11/1/17, 11:22 AM
Bill Clinton just does NOT get enough well deserved credit (and Hillary too) for unmasking NOW and the other feminist groups as the leftist whores that they were/are. They willingly sold their principles to protect Clinton and threw their sisters (Clinton's other victims) under the bus because they thought protecting him was preferable to justice for those women.
No, it's still terrible for him to setup a professional environment that limits the advancement of women by excluding them from some of the career advancement opportunities that are given to men.
I see we're already back to pretending having dinner makes and breaks careers.
Also, the Cosby trial which I think started in May, 2016, got many women reliving their own experiences of harassment. A powerful Hollywood icon was no longer seen as omnipotent. Then as Ann said, Hillary lost the election and the Democratic donor establishment lost a lot of power. #metoo happened.
Yet another reason that isn't Hillary to explain What Happened.
Bears repeating:
"If any aspect of Bill getting a pass led to Trump, it's the rank hypocrisy and blatant double standard displayed by both Hillary and the media."
I don't disagree with anything written by Althouse in this post, old quotes or otherwise.
But the only problem, or conundrum, lies with the Clinton-supporting left. Insofar as they doggedly defended Clinton but now want to attack others who aren't such top-level political figures. And I suppose it may be something of a problem for Trump supporters who criticize the depredations of a Clinton, etc., while defending and deflecting for Trump.
None of any of this is a problem for the conservatives and Republicans who never defended Clinton, and who won't now defend Trump. And who, in the interim also refused to defend Newr Gingrich, Larry Craig, Jesse Jackson, or any of the other scandal-clowns.
Chuck thinks Trump and Clinton are comparable regarding sexual harassment and/or sexual assault. Here you go, Chuck -- have another bag of dicks.
Chuck at 11:55am
I have no problem criticizing Clinton while (somewhat) defending Trump, on the basis of Clinton's actions being worse.
No, Bill O'Reilly, on the other hand, seems more in the Clinton mode, and I would not defend him.
Don't forget Jeff Weinstein and his recent woes, linked to...ahem...Bill Clinton.
The Right no longer has any belief in the moral authority, or even the slightest scintilla of well-meaning, of the Left. Leftists have only their own to hunt because no one else feels any obligation to even pretend to give a shit. Talk about unintended consequences.
But how can the Anti-Trumpfolks try to blame Trump for crimes that they say he committed while he was an insane person. The poor fellow just has a disease according to the Anti-Trumpers.
"I don't disagree with anything written by Althouse in this post,[...]"
Chuck, I'm guessing you supported Bill Clinton's impeachment. Yes?
exhelodrvr1 said...
Not just Bill Clinton - it goes back at least as far as the excessive media protection provided to the Kennedy's
You beat me to it. Imagine a Republican Ted trying to run in 1980. Non-stop Chappaquiddick, if he'd had the colossal nerve to try it.
JFK's sexual incontinence was first revealed in the mid 70's, and the stories have only gotten more lurid and demeaning to women since, yet the "glamour" of Cape Cod Camelot is still trotted out regularly--mostly for women!
I don't think that anyone 'approved' of Trump's treatment of women.
However, it was 'already baked in'. I recall a credit card commercial where Trump was in a pottery class looking down the low cut shirt of some hot babe.
His pulchritudinous ways were already baked into his persona, just like Bill Clinton. So there really was no 'angle of attack'. We knew he was a philanderer who liked women A LOT...so the only question was 'whom do you hate more'?
In this case, saving California, it was Hillary.
The carnage continues: NPR news chief resigning over sexual harassment claims.
Matthew Sablan: 'That's a lot of ink to say "Fen's Law."'
But would it have been as lyrical?
As always, I'll leave it to Laslo to render the final verdict.
It is very important to "Accidental Leftist" Chuck that the waters be muddied mightily in order to minimize billy boys transgressions and improperly characterize Trump and his comments.
All in a days work for our "lifelong republican".
Funny how nobody noticed last year that there was a disconnect between enabling a horndog for 40 years and running as a champion of women's rights.
Between "narcissistic loony tune" and "All women should be believed."
Between paying Paula Jones $800,000 to shut up and then making a debate issue out of the critical Miss Universe issue.
Between a career based entirely on her status as Mrs. His-Name and then smearing career women who didn't vote for her.
Yes, Clinton's loss broke the dam. But the flood it unleashed spilled over in ways prog accusers were unable to channel adequately. Trying to drown all men in it will backfire, if you'll forgive the mixed metaphors.
It's one of the most interesting aspects of the current phase in the culture war: progs are a bit out of control and eating their own. Just staying out of the way means the right wins a round or two.
"men in all fields and in all situations are now going to be much more careful to not go anywhere near the line where their behavior can be defined as sexual harassment." If in doubt, be (or at least pretend) to be a gentleman.
The sexual harassment charges at NPR will really have Chuckles in a tizzy. Prepare the Deflectonator for launch!
Ha!
Right, it's bad enough that y'all can vote and drive cars. Now you don't want to be sexually harassed as part of your job?
I apologize if I wasn't explicit enough. Men are/will be scared shitless that their lives will be destroyed by false allegations levied by women of little character, or by retroactive punishment when standards change over time.
For example. Mr. Pants has two female colleagues who work in other cities, with whom (at their instigation) he is on a hugging basis when he sees them every few months. This presents a problem. Will society decide tomorrow or next week or next year that this was sexual harassment? If he gets promoted and they get passed over, will they decide that he was pressuring them into full frontal hugs? Will they say (falsely) that he showed up at their hotel room doors when they were all at conferences together? Will he then become unemployable?
You're not an idiot. You know that some of this is real, and some of this is bullshit. You're celebrating the punishment of the real sexual harassment, concluding that it will chasten men into behaving, but you are ignoring that fear of the bullshit will make men want to avoid having anything to do with women.
"If in doubt, be (or at least pretend) to be a gentleman."
Pence.
Do we know what Althouse's attitude was in the Year of Monica?
We presume with some evidence that she's been consistent in the 19 years since, but I'm guessing she voted for Clinton twice, despite all that people who paid attention knew about him and his minions & cronies (and wife) before the 96 election.
Disillusions are de rigueur in politics, but they don't stop a lot of activists and voters. The MSM turned on him in January 2000, but it didn't last long.
"This is one reason so many were willing to look past Mr. Trump's misbehavior on the campaign trail and are still willing to give him a pass today."
Do you suppose Mr Riley knows he is talking about something that never happened, and is hoping we don't? Or is Mr. Riley clinically insane? Tough call.
Better give Mr Pants a "cold" next time and every time.
"Is this battlefield prep for future stories about Trump? Does giving Harvey Weinstein the death penalty make it easier to do the same for Trump?"
That trial has already been held and a verdict delivered in November of 2016. What we're witnessing now is the contradictions of cognitive dissonance bursting out of the enfeebled and traumatized minds of progs.
I am irritated that the adjective he uses for you is "prolific". While true, it is the least of what he could have said.
If in doubt, be (or at least pretend) to be a gentleman.
And how do you protect yourself against being misunderstood or wrongfully accused of something you didn't say or do?
I see we're already back to pretending having dinner makes and breaks careers.
Agreed. Apparently in the industries where having dinner and drinks with your boss makes or breaks your career, there is rampant sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior. Color me shocked. I don't think Mike Pence is hanging out with his male coworkers alone after hours either...
On a different note, I'm pleased that Althouse has become regular reading for the WSJ editorial board. Taranto and now Riley. This is a good thing.
they thought they could fool all of us into believing what Trump said was actually Trump doing those things he talked about on tape.
They fooled me until I read the actual quote earlier this year. Just as in the contrived scandal over Bush's 16 words about yellow cake, they continue to deceive people by misconstruing. Some of them even believe they're not lying.
"And how do you protect yourself against being misunderstood or wrongfully accused of something you didn't say or do?"
Pence.
Besides this,
It is traditional for gentlemen and ladies to deal with each other in a spirit of propriety, which includes a consideration for appearances. This is not so easily adaptable to modern circumstances, and not to modern workplaces either.
This is not the 1950's-60's "Mad Men" standards, but much more that which applied to the 19th century bourgeoisie.
Granted, its possible that the Pence system, in the case of Pence, is just appearances and PR. I have no idea just how well Mr. Pence follows his own system.
I am assuming he does, and I hope he does.
Apparently in the industries where having dinner and drinks with your boss makes or breaks your career, there is rampant sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior
Not just bosses, but clients too. "Entertainment" is an enormous line item in business development budgets. "Camaraderie" is what creates relationships that lead to contracts. Problem is that, as you point out, this is fertile breeding ground for rampant inappropriate behavior as the lines between socializing and working are so blurred.
Thinking about the Weinstein scandal in political terms provides some revealing insights, but the #MeToo movement leads me to think that we would gain even more insight by reading or re-reading Mackay's "Extraordinary Popular Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds". It's available at Amazon through the Althouse portal (Kindle version free). Of course it' a little troubling to think of Harvey Weinstein and the Tulip Bulb Mania at the same time.
Mike writes: You haven't been working for a large corporation in the last 20 years then. Every year we have LERN modules (Legal and Ethical something or other) that include sexual harassment training. Every freaking year.
And this in addition to Diversity Training and LGBTQ Sensitivity Training.
What really galls me is not Bill Clinton's exoneration but Ted Kennedy's. He killed someone and got away with it!
Do we know what Althouse's attitude was in the Year of Monica?
Althouse wasn't blogging then, but a dozen years ago she wrote that Democrats have a long, long way to go to convince me that they care about feminism.
It seems that attitudes have changed not only about gay marriage but also about sexual harassment.......There's a bill of attainder quality about some misconduct, but Harvey Weinstein and James Toback, by any standards, in any era, were pigs. Caligula would not invite them to his orgies. Some behavior is just too gross.......Hollywood is in the business of creating, crafting, and burnishing images. It will be interesting to see how the make up artists conceal these black eyes and bruises on the stars. They've done a piss poor job so far.
"If any aspect of Bill getting a pass led to Trump, it's the rank hypocrisy and blatant double standard displayed by both Hillary and the media."
-- It'll be a nice bit of poetic justice along with her having her media allies deliberately torpedo the non-Trumps thinking he'd be the easiest opponent to beat in the general.
My God, was there *anything* she was right about strategically/tactically in the election?
"Don't forget Jeff Weinstein and his recent woes, linked to...ahem...Bill Clinton."
Jeffrey Epstein.
Blogger mockturtle said...
What really galls me is not Bill Clinton's exoneration but Ted Kennedy's. He killed someone and got away with it!
Ted Kennedy was a scumbag but I have even more vitriol for the people of Massachusetts who continued to re-elect him to the US Senate knowing full-well who he was and what he did.
"What really galls me is not Bill Clinton's exoneration but Ted Kennedy's. "
“If she had lived, Mary Jo Kopechne would be 62 years old. Through his tireless work as a legislator, Edward Kennedy would have brought comfort to her in her old age."
Jeffrey Epstein.
Now you've done it.
LLR Chuck is not going to like you bringing up that name...or the fact that he is a registered sex offender, known to secretly record the sexual liaisons he arranges with "distinguished" guests for blackmailing purposes, and that Billy boy clinton chooses to hang out with him to the tune of about 26 private flights with Epstein to "exotic" locales.
And Billy boy on several occasions instructed his Secret Service details to not accompany him.
Nothing to see there folks! Chuckie will explain all of that later.
I could always pass online sensitivity tests without reading the lesson. The desired answers are obvious.
Professor Emerita and Her Prolific Blog.
She could open in Vegas with an act with a name like that. Maybe not Caesar's but certainly the old Sands.
My God, was there *anything* she was right about strategically/tactically in the election?
Yes.
That there would be oodles of Lifelong republicans and establishment republicans who would support her.
She was absolutely, 100% correct about that. And they continue to support her.
And if you think those same LLR's wouldn't have called Ted Cruz a nazi and a hater and then supported Hillary, you are kidding yourself.
It would take a huge scandal to get the upcoming Clinton troubles off of the front page, wouldn't it SDaly?
Althouse’s theory has it backwards. Men like Weinstein (and Trump) supported the Clintons to provide themselves cover, helping themselves was the primary motivation not helping Bill Clinton. Ailes and O’Reilly could have gone harder after Bill Clinton on sexual misconduct issues, it was in their potical interest to do so, but not in their personal interest. The sexual harassment cover was coming from both sides.
You beat me to it at 2:28 PM, Drago!
Shorter Left Bank: "Everybody does it!"
Blogger Martin said...
Chuck at 11:55am
I have no problem criticizing Clinton while (somewhat) defending Trump, on the basis of Clinton's actions being worse.
Well that's your deal; threading that moral needle. Good luck, parsing the severity of the complaints, the credibility of the women, all the rest. It's just not my problem. I'll let all of you squirm around defending your side.
I agree with Hari the commenter. I think it's entirely because of Trump's election. Robert Stacy McCain expounds on this point in his most recent post (linked to InstaPundit)
BJ Clinton got the one and only "One Free Grope." Now it's "Fight's on!"
"Accidental Leftist" Chuck: " I'll let all of you squirm around defending your side."
Well, that will afford you much greater time being superior morally to all others as you rumor monger about children.
You know, in a very "non threading the needle" way.
left bank: "Men like Weinstein (and Trump) supported the Clintons to provide themselves cover, helping themselves was the primary motivation not helping Bill Clinton"
LOL
Perfectly leftist.
That Trump, he wasn't paying off the dems because he was a NYC real estate developer. Nosirree, he was like Weinstein!
Yeah, keep running with that one.
That oughta work....
Once again, LLR Chucks talking points of the day accidentally, inexplicably, align perfectly with the lefty talking points of the day.
It is truly amazing how that happens every, single, day.
But only every single day.
Hyper-politicizing?
Normal politicizing is dog bites man these days. You have to get to hyper-politicizing in order to stir people up and make them click.
What's next? Politicizing on steroids?
Drago, Weinstein was paying off the Dems to get ahead Hollywood.
Drago:It is truly amazing how that happens every, single, day.
Not at all if you read "Through the Looking-glass." Chuck agrees with the lefty talking-points today. He didn't yesterday, and won't tomorrow.
"I'm sure I'll take you with pleasure!" the Queen said. "Two pence a week, and jam every other day."
Alice couldn't help laughing, as she said, "I don't want you to hire me – and I don't care for jam."
"It's very good jam," said the Queen.
"Well, I don't want any to-day, at any rate."
"You couldn't have it if you did want it," the Queen said. "The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day."
"It must come sometimes to 'jam to-day'," Alice objected.
"No, it can't," said the Queen. "It's jam every other day: to-day isn't any other day, you know."
"I don't understand you," said Alice. "It's dreadfully confusing!"
Left Bank of the Charles: "Drago, Weinstein was paying off the Dems to get ahead Hollywood."
What a putz.
Weinstein was one of the guys running Hollywood. He was paying the dems because he was one of them and they were all "one with him".
"I'll let all of you squirm around defending your side."
"your side" -- from the horse's mouth.
I see noted Republican Dustin Hoffman has now been accused.
I think Hari needs a tag!!
The DNC desperately needs a paragon of virtue to cling to, that they can present as the new face of the left. Someone without a hint of sexual scandal. An elder statesman of snow white morals.
Someone warm up old Joe Biden....
I don't think that anyone 'approved' of Trump's treatment of women.
I keep seeing all this innuendo about Trump, but not a single specific reference to any action, or even a credible accusation by an alleged victim. That is in stark contrast to Clinton, where we have a long list of specifics with names attached: Lewinsky, Willey, Broaddrick, Jones, for starters. For Trump we have some video where he said something vague about what women allow stars to do. Why are we even talking about the two of them together?
Chuck at 3:55pm
Not squirming at all, few decisions are easier.
I take it you live in a world populated only by devils and saints.
Sorry that was for Chuck at 3:09
Well, James, during the campaign a handful of women came forward with claims that Trump made unwanted passes at them. Wikipedia has a list.
The point of this post by Altouse is that some people seem to be theorizing that voters gave Trump a pass because if groping someone interviewing for a job is okay (Kathleen Willey) and even raping a woman (Juanita Broaddrick), then a crude pass anda butt grab by Trump has to be very okay.
In my opinion people gave Trump a pass for the same reason people gave Clarence Thomas a pass: we don't believe the accusers. Women lie, and lefty women lie reflexively. Some of the allegations may be true, particularly the older ones, but others have been refuted by people there at the time.
Althouse says:"..."Giving him cover gave cover to other powerful men, and the cause of women's equality in the workplace was set back 20 years."
Oh, pleeeze, Althouse , give me a break. Why do you - or virtually no-one - make even 1/10th as much noise about the absolutely parallel 'cause' of young males abused by the "cover of powerful men"?!? Duh? Are you simply for the the belatedly whiny and sanctimonious females and that's it?!
I hope not.
There has been acute liberalization since women were denied agency by placing conception before choice. Combined with [class] diversity, including sexism, the humanitarian pornographers, male chauvinists, and especially female chauvinists, appreciate the "good" Americans for contributing to social progress.
You can't imagine my surprise that Unknown never showed up. Democrats can never admit how they sold out.
Shocked that ARM didn't show up to lecture you on conspiracy theories!
Where is Clinton apologist Snark?
Progressive liberals have elective abortion on their collective minds.
You cannot debase human life (e.g. Choice), denigrate individual dignity (e.g. progressive diversity), especially under a layer of privacy and euphemisms, respectively, and not expect weird and depraved outcomes.
Fabi said...
"I'll let all of you squirm around defending your side."
"your side" -- from the horse's mouth.
No; "your side" as in the side of the Clintonistas' defense of their guy, the character assassination of the Clinton accusers (about which I suspect many of the Althouse commenters could write an essay), the lying under oath, the perversion of the DoJ, etc., etc., etc.
~AND~
The "side" of TrumpWorld as he tried to bully his way through the multiple allegations against him of harassment, if not assault. Trump's ultimately impotent threats of defamataion lawsuits against them. The Ivana Trump divorce deposition. And the apparent payoff to her, to retract her sworn testimony. Etc., etc.
You all can fight about that. My political heros don't need to worry about it. I don't need to worry about it. They aren't part of it.
I have nothing to answer for, in any of this. I'm not defending Clinton, or Trump, or Gingrich, or Spitzer, or Barney Frank, or Larry Craig, or any of them.
They are all basically remorseless and shameless.
Peggy Noonan did a wonderful column about it, using the disgraced British politician John Profumo as her focus. I recommend it to all:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324425204578600230806506440
The right doesn't believe in accountability. Trump said he could kill someone in broad daylight and get away with it - and they agree.
The right believes in tribalism.
Get the left-wing sexual harasser, screameth the right!
He redirects focus away from their very own, very unpresidential right-wing sexual harasser.
When Bill Clinton appears on lists of famous and powerful abusers, you will know that they have stopped covering for him.
In my opinion people gave Trump a pass for the same reason people gave Clarence Thomas a pass: we don't believe the accusers.
That's why I included the word "credible." Also, making "an unwanted pass" is rather different from rape, as Clinton has been credibly accused of. So in addition to being incredible, the claims even if true are not in the same time zone.
"He redirects focus away from their very own, very unpresidential right-wing sexual harasser"
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue was going to have a sex offender dot on the map regardless of who won, so obviously we have to make our choices based on other issues. Democrats really should not have run somebody guilty of everything they want to pin on Trump. Three years maybe the party can remedy that.
He paid her to shut up, or she made the accusation to extract money, only Chuck knows. I tend to believe her, but the divorce settlement only proves what you already assume.
@JAORE, get on YouTube and search on “pervert Joe Biden”. Also it has been credibly reported that Biden waves his schlong at female Secret Service agents guarding him.
Keep looking for your Great White (haired) Democrat Hope.
Kamala Harris probably hasn't got THAT sort of skeleton in her closet.
I don't have any political heroes, Chuck.
Chuck, Profumo was fucking a call girl who was also fucking a KGB agent. Slight difference that seems to have escaped you.
Clinton took advantage of an intern.
Trump has boasted that "they would let you" if you are famous. No evidence that he ever did anything about it.
Clinton took advantage of an intern.
I would hardly call Monica Lewinsky a victim. She was clearly out to seduce Clinton. There were plenty who were, though.
Kamala Harris probably hasn't got THAT sort of skeleton in her closet.
It's a pretty open secret in California that she slept her way to the top.
It appears that only Lewis Carroll can explain how Chuck can be a 'lifelong Republican' and at the same time an 'accidental' [or even incidental] left apologist.
Gary Sinese - not allowed to be part of some parade in Pasadena.
Bill Clinton - leftwing Hillarywood superhero!
It's as if no one remembers the church cases.
"It's a pretty open secret in California that she slept her way to the top."
Yes, but that puts her on the "actress" side of the "casting couch".
Willie Brown was her Weinstein I suppose. There probably is a shoe waiting to drop on that guy, but its been a very long time.
I'll wager Margaret Thatcher didn't sleep her way to the top.
Michael K said...
Chuck, Profumo was fucking a call girl who was also fucking a KGB agent. Slight difference that seems to have escaped you.
Good lord, I didn't think that anyone could miss the point so thoroughly.
I am not comparing sex and sex-assaults or sex-harassment. And that wasn't anything like Peggy Noonan's point, either. The point that you missed was this, as written by Peggy Noonan:
Because Profumo believed in remorse of conscience—because he actually had a conscience—he could absorb what happened and let it change him however it would. In a way what he believed in was reality. He'd done something terrible—to his country, to his friends, to strangers who had to explain the headlines about him to their children.
He never knew political power again. He never asked for it. He did something altogether more confounding.
He did the hardest thing for a political figure. He really went away. He went to a place that helped the poor, a rundown settlement house called Toynbee Hall in the East End of London. There he did social work—actually the scut work of social work, washing dishes and cleaning toilets. He visited prisons for the criminally insane, helped with housing for the poor and worker education.
And it wasn't for show, wasn't a step on the way to political redemption. He worked at Toynbee for 40 years.
He didn't give interviews, never wrote a book, didn't go on TV. Alistair Horne: "Profumo . . . spent the rest of his life admirably dedicated to valuable good works, most loyally supported by his wife. At regular intervals, some journalist writing 'in the public interest' would rake up the old story to plague the ruined man and cause him renewed suffering. His haunted, unsmiling face was a living epitaph to the 'Swinging Sixties.'"
In November 2003, to mark the 40th anniversary of his work, Profumo gave an interview to an old friend. "Jack," said W.F. Deedes, "what have you learnt from this place?" After a pause for thought, Profumo said: "Humility."
...
So what are we saying? You know.
We're saying the answer to the politician's question, "What is the optimum moment at which to come back from a big sex scandal, and how do I do it?" is this:
"You are asking the wrong question."
The right questions would go something like: "What can I do to stop being greedy for power, attention and adulation? How can I come to understand that the question is not the public's capacity to forgive, but my own capacity to exercise sound judgment and regard for others?
"How can I stop being a manipulator of public emotions and become the kind of person who generates headlines that parents are relieved—grateful—to explain to their children?"
And of course the answer is: You can do what John Profumo did. You can go away. You can do something good. You can help women instead of degrading them, help your culture and your city instead of degrading them.
You can become a man.
mockturtle said...
It appears that only Lewis Carroll can explain how Chuck can be a 'lifelong Republican' and at the same time an 'accidental' [or even incidental] left apologist.
I know I'll regret asking, but how does my essentially saying, "I think Bill Clinton is a scumbag, and Donald Trump is a scumbag" make me a "left apologist"?
Chuck must want to Trump to become a hermit and atone for his alleged transgressions. Lulz
"I know I'll regret asking, but how does my essentially saying, "I think Bill Clinton is a scumbag, and Donald Trump is a scumbag" make me a "left apologist"?"
Certainly not. It's the drumfire of comments excusing every criticism and accusation from the Left that makes you a Left apologist. Mind you, I'd say a Leftist stooge, at best, or a particularly inept Leftist troll, at worst, but whatever.
How long has the establishment been covering for the Kennedy men? It didn't just start with Bill Clinton
Profumo didn't have viagra.
Pharma has made our Big Men crazy.
Poor chuck. You missed the point even worse than you think I did.
Like a lot of Brits, especially Conservatives, they are used to being "fags" for upperclassmen at OxBridge.
Sexual debasement is almost a requirement. Profumo was participating in typical upper class British hijinks.
Mandy Rice-Davies was a party girl of the type found in Britain.
Christine Keeler was another of the celebrity osteopath Stephen Ward's girls.
In 1945 Ward began practising osteopathy in London, and rapidly became successful and fashionable, with many distinguished clients. In his spare time he also studied at the Slade School, and developed a talent for sketching portraits which provided a profitable sideline. His practice and his art brought considerable social success, and he made many important friends. Among these was Lord Astor, at whose country house, Cliveden, in the summer of 1961, Ward introduced Profumo to a 19-year-old showgirl and night-club model, Christine Keeler. Profumo, who was married to the actress Valerie Hobson, embarked on a brief affair with Keeler, most of their assignations taking place in Ward's home in Wimpole Mews.
Ward's friendship with the Russian military attaché Yevgeny Ivanov, known by MI5 to be an intelligence officer, drew him to the attention of British intelligence, who sought to use him in an attempt to secure Ivanov's defection. The matter became complicated when, through Ward, Ivanov met Keeler, raising the possibility of a Profumo-Keeler-Ivanov triangle.
Ward had naked romps at country houses. in which many British politicians had their hijinks with call girls.
The British upper classes are used to some strange mating practices in "Public schools" and can get pretty weird.
I know you hate Trump too much to understand but he is actually a normal man. British politicians tend to weird things like auto asphyxia eroticism.
They are after Ted Heath now alleging he molested boys.
It's not that rare and it appeals to those with weird childhoods.
Not Trump.
Chuck asks: I know I'll regret asking, but how does my essentially saying, "I think Bill Clinton is a scumbag, and Donald Trump is a scumbag" make me a "left apologist"?
I know I'll regret answering but I was alluding to your posts in general, not one in particular.
Our favorite LLR Sgt Schultz who never saw any vote fraud in Detroit (I see nothing. Nothing!) thinks that Republicans having affairs is the same as Bill Clinton mauling and raping women. That's morally incoherent, although I find both types of behaviors reprehensible.
Our same Sgt Schultz uses a Peggy Noonan quote to justify his position? That is way beyond the pale.
Have you no decency, sir?
Lost in all of this is the fact that many accusations are without evidence. Are we merely to believe all accusers? This is certainly problematic as women have lied about this sort of thing in the past, enough that we can't merely convict people or destroy their lives on an accusation.
mockturtle said...
Chuck asks: "I know I'll regret asking, but how does my essentially saying, 'I think Bill Clinton is a scumbag, and Donald Trump is a scumbag' make me a 'left apologist'?"
I know I'll regret answering but I was alluding to your posts in general, not one in particular.
So you're talking about my many posts praising Justice Scalia, particularly with regard to his dissents in the Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell cases? My posts supporting Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, and the Republican justices on the Supreme Court? My posts supporting Mitt Romney? My posts assailing John Edwards? The complete and utter lack of any posts from me offering any electoral support for any Democrat, ever? The innumerable posts from me indicating that I voted for Donald Trump as the lesser of two evils?
Any of those posts? Is that what betrays me as "left apologist"?
Face it; the weird, twisted, fucked-up world that is TrumpLand equates any criticism of Trump as some sort of leftist affiliation. It's a true Cult of the Personality.
It seems this latest kerflyffle in pale pastische of what was going in the 1990s with culture secretary Mellor and the like.
Brett Rayner almost ruined the x man franchise, it took Simon kinberg and Matt vaughn to revive it, so I'm willing tie believe the worst of him, Olivia muon who even knew in 2010 who she was.
Chuck is being disingenuous.
So you have a bumper crop of potential harassers, Michael oreskes of nor,
Dustin hoffman, Jeremy piven
we can't merely convict people or destroy their lives on an accusation
No, we shouldn't. The indulgence, nay delight, is a temporary blindness induced by dreams of exposing, as frauds and charlatans, a class of actors that have been engaged in identity, brand, and character assassination for nearly a century.
May d its just something's liberals do together, like Obama said of got.
Face it; the weird, twisted, fucked-up world that is TrumpLand equates any criticism of Trump as some sort of leftist affiliation.
Not any. It has to be constant, unremitting and manic criticism.
Not any. It has to be constant, unremitting and manic criticism.
As well as obsessive and compulsive.
Kamala Harris probably hasn't got THAT sort of skeleton in her closet.
Her entire political career has been on her back on the casting couch when she wasn't abusing the office of attorney general to attack political opponents.
PB said...
Lost in all of this is the fact that many accusations are without evidence. Are we merely to believe all accusers?
In Trump's case there aren't even any accusers. I think one woman said he made moves on her on an airplane in front of a dozen people or so and only the leftists think there is a shred of credibility to it.
To the extent he was cheating and womanizing I am not seeing the stories in the tabloids/media I would have expected. Where are all of the women he had affairs with? I think he married the second wife after he cheated on his first wife with her right? If I disowned all of my friends who were equally douchey I wouldn't have many friends. I wouldn't/haven't done it myself but I am sure I am in the minority there.
There are zero known cases of Trump attacking/assaulting/harassing women. None have even accused him much less credibly.
There are zero known cases of Trump attacking/assaulting/harassing women. None have even accused him much less credibly.
There's a Wikipedia page chronicling it. Three women who have filed allegations against Trump in court-filed documents, plus 12 others who have made public allegations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations
Naturally, don't rely on "Wikipedia." Inspect the footnotes.
Well, Chuck, some of us aren’t as gullible as you are. I think I’m the first person to link to that Wiki page, but I find hardly any of the accusations to be credible. But, you know, it’safree Country (no thanks to Democrats and folks like you who aid and abet them) so believe what you feel like.
RJ Chatt
It was all of the donor class that lost out with the election of Trump. A lot of those donors gave to both sides and were looking for a return on that investment. The donor class does not care which party is in office as long as they control what that party does.
Next year in Seattle: signs that say "hurricanes, please hit here
Big Mike said...
Well, Chuck, some of us aren’t as gullible as you are. I think I’m the first person to link to that Wiki page, but I find hardly any of the accusations to be credible. But, you know, it’safree Country (no thanks to Democrats and folks like you who aid and abet them) so believe what you feel like.
Well, thank you. I think I'll do just that. I'll believe what I like. In my case, I've never obsessed over the assault/harassment allegations against Trump because I have about a thousand unrelated reasons to think that Trump is a scumbag, personally.
But remember that Achilles' trash-talking post wasn't about the relative credibility of differing allegations against different alleged offenders. No; Achilles made the plainly wrong claim that there hadn't been any allegations at all versus Trump. Which is so wonderfully illustrative of the information bubble that TrumpWorlders live in.
Chuck says Trump is a scumbag, but he voted for him anyway. Tell us more about your deeply-held principles! Lulz
Chuck denies and affirms in the same comment. It's a gift of sorts, I guess.
LLR and "Accidental Leftist" Chuck: "No; Achilles made the plainly wrong claim that there hadn't been any allegations at all versus Trump. Which is so wonderfully illustrative of the information bubble that TrumpWorlders live in."
Terms Chuck never uses: "HillaryWorlders", "SchumerWorlders", "DemocratWorlders", "BidenWorlders", "MSMWorlders", etc.
I think we all know why.
"Accidental Leftist" Chuck: " My posts assailing John Edwards?"
LOL
Note the democrats he can't list as assailing: Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, etc.
Not to worry. In about 12 years or so LLR Chuck will feel "comfortable" enough "assailing" them as he has "John Edwards".
Of course, there will be lots of republicans our LLR will be assailing in the meanwhile.
Lots and lots of them. Particularly republican voters. Particularly them.
Which, once again, aligns perfectly with all the dem narratives.
Unexpectedly!
Of course, there will be lots of republicans our LLR will be assailing in the meanwhile.
Who? Which Republicans have I assailed? Particularly for being Republicans.
Besides Trump. Who, along with Bannon (and Rush and Hannity and some others, almost none of whom self-identify as Republicans) is attacking Republicans in Congress across the country on a daily basis.
You people are just so fucked up. All you can talk about is "Hillary." "Obama." "Pelosi." "Schumer." When you have legislative majorities all over the place, you're all still fixated on Hillary and Obama.
"When you have legislative majorities all over the place, you're all still fixated on Hillary and Obama."
Surely the LLR meant "we" have legislative majorities, no? Chuck is a prolific, yet sloppy, troll.
Well, actually I regard "us" as having legislative majorities. We Republicans. But I don't much regard many of you as Republicans. Many of you say that you deplore the current Republicans in Congress and their leadership. If you want to be Republicans, and be part of that majority, you might want to act like it.
I say "you have legislative majorities all over the place" because I presume you want to be some sort of majority Republican. A new sort, perhaps. Presumably some sort of Bannonish, ultra-nationalist party.
The real point is that instead of talking about health care, or tax policy, or budgeting, you are all talking about people who are not even in office anymore, or who are in the minority.
Pro tip: When you've reached the place where your increasingly labored explanations detract from your argument, stop.
Fabi said...
Chuck says Trump is a scumbag, but he voted for him anyway. Tell us more about your deeply-held principles! Lulz
My one principle is that Trump was the least-bad alternative. That was my final deeply-held principle in 2016.
So what does that say about my view of another Clinton presidency?
The difference between me and TrumpWorld on Hillary is that I am not obsessing over her. She's out; she's gone. She lost. I voted against her, and I'm glad she lost. There's no reason for me to talk about her.
Don't get your meat where you get your bread and butter.
This works as a personal rule, and a light, humorous brushoff to someone at work who is making a pass at you.
Also...sexual harassment is about unwanted attentions. How does the "perp" know that it's unwanted unless the "vic" tells him that it is? Sexual harassment cannot even begin until vic tells perp no/stop/not interested. Given most women's compulsion to be nice, most problematic in the nubile years, I think most allegations of sexual harassment don't really count.
The real point is that instead of talking about health care, or tax policy, or budgeting,
What is: Things Congressional Republicans have failed to accomplish?
Chuck denies and affirms in the same comment. It's a gift of sorts, I guess.
I should guess that, being a Moby, one sometimes trips over one's own ideology.
" difference between me and TrumpWorld on Hillary is that I am not obsessing over her. She's out; she's gone. She lost."
Doesn't bother LLR that there is on standard for prosecution of Democrats, and another for Republicans.... conveniently.
"legislative majorities. We Republicans. But I don't much regard many of you as Republicans"
Chuck's new smaller party is poised for victory after victory!
Many of you say that you deplore the current Republicans in Congress and their leadership. If you want to be Republicans, and be part of that majority, you might want to act like it.
So if we want to be Republicans we have to support Republicans who act like Democrats--by undermining the Republican President, failing to get important legislation through, adhering to some rule named for a Klansman that "requires" them to raise taxes, and failing to cut spending. Got it.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा