63 thoughts on “The Selective Moral Outrage”

  1. If memory serves, there weren’t any public allegations of Clinton sexually assaulting anyone until well into his second and final term (Willey and Broaddrick). And those claims took the backseat to the more publicized and more credible claim of an affair with Lewinsky, which did set plenty of Democrats’ hair on fire (e.g. Tim Kaine, Joe Lieberman).

    Trump, by contrast, has been accused of sexual assault by about a dozen different women and counting. The voters never had a chance to weigh in on whether they considered the charges against Bill Clinton credible and disqualifying. They have that opportunity with Trump.

    1. If memory serves, there weren’t any public allegations of Clinton sexually assaulting anyone until well into his second and final term (Willey and Broaddrick)

      And Eileen Wellstone, and Elizabeth Ward Gracen. And Willey’s story came out before the impeachment, yet the Democrats were still outraged, talking about “coups” (when it would have been to their benefit, putting Gore in the White House for an almost-certain win in 2000).

      which did set plenty of Democrats’ hair on fire (e.g. Tim Kaine, Joe Lieberman).

      I think you just pretty much exhausted the list.

      1. I’ve never heard of Wellstone or Gracen before, so no, they didn’t set my hair on fire. Gracen’s Wikipedia page says she claims to have had a one night stand with Bill Clinton; there’s no allegation of assault. Wellstone doesn’t seem to have ever made a public allegation either.

        Broaddrick remains the solitary example of a credible claim of sexual assault by Bill Clinton.

          1. So Democrats are supposed to judge Bill Clinton for crimes that no one ever reported?

            Here in the present there are women claiming that Trump sexually assaulted them. Do you believe them?

          3. So Democrats are supposed to judge Bill Clinton for crimes that no one ever reported?

            No. But we are talking about the various reported rapes, harassments, and assaults that Bill was reported to have committed going back to his days as Governor and pretty much continuing through his Presidency and into retirement. I’ll admit, it takes a bit more than visiting Jeff Epstein’s sex slave island to suggest that Bill is a pedophile assaulting endangered girls. But there’s plenty of evidence from Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and even Monica Lewinski to suggest Bill’s habits have been reported frequently.

            On the other hand, there’s as much evidence against Trump as Danny has that Bill’s his father.

        2. “I’ve never heard of Wellstone or Gracen before, so no, they didn’t set my hair on fire.”

          That’s because you limit your sources of information to those who say comforting things to you.

          “Broaddrick remains the solitary example of a credible claim of sexual assault by Bill Clinton.”

          Whoa, what? WHAT???

          You live in a fantasy world.

          2. Willey’s claim has never been very credible. Following your link:

            Linda Tripp, the Clinton Administration staffer who secretly taped her phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky in order to expose the latter’s affair with the President, testified under oath that Willey’s sexual contact with President Clinton in 1993 was consensual, that Willey had been flirting with the President, and that Willey was happy and excited following her 1993 encounter with Clinton.[18] Six other friends of Willey confirmed Tripp’s account, that Willey had sought a sexual relationship with the President.[19] Ken Starr, who had deposed Willey in the course of investigating the sexual history of President Clinton, determined that she had lied under oath repeatedly to his investigators.

            And, you’d vote for the wife who threatened her to keep her mouth shut.

            The notion that Bill Clinton told Hillary Clinton that he’d raped Broaddrick does not pass the laugh test.

          3. Something can start out as consensual but not end that way. Just because a woman flirts with a man doesn’t mean a man can do anything he wants to her. Did Bill ask for permission before each act?

            The notion that Bill Clinton told Hillary Clinton

            Does that even matter? She was punishing women rather than hold her husband accountable. No one made Bill do these things to so many women. You are just engaging in more victim blaming.

            Also, don’t forget under today’s rules of what constitutes rape, Bill raped Monica.

          4. Does that even matter?

            Yes, it’s central to the claim that Hillary Clinton threatened Broaddrick. Hillary Clinton’s words to Broaddrick are only a threat if Bill Clinton told Hillary about the rape. Which he would never do.

          5. Also, don’t forget under today’s rules of what constitutes rape, Bill raped Monica.

            Here’s Lewinsky’s description of the start of her affair with Bill Clinton:

            “We talked briefly and sort of acknowledged that there had been a chemistry that was there before and that we were both attracted to each other and then he asked me if he could kiss me.” Ms. Lewinsky said yes.

            Lewinsky was a consenting adult. There’s no “rule” under which she was raped.

          6. Lewinsky was a consenting adult.

            He was in a position of power over her. He was the teacher in a teacher student relationship. She was not able to consent under these conditions. This is under the Sex Laws that Democrats are installing on college campuses at the direction of the DOE.

            Which he would never do.

            How do you know? You don’t think they are both aware and accepting of the nature of their relationship?

          7. That’s not from my link. There is no credible testimony against Willey.

            Broaddrick’s account of events is now corroborated by the nurse who attended her. Hillary and Bill are peas in a pod. The idea that she wasn’t aware of his proclivities is laughable.

            You leap on Trump for idle boasts, and defend actual criminal behavior if they agree with you. That is really low, Jim.

    2. If memory serves

      It doesn’t. It never has.

      there weren’t any public allegations of Clinton sexually assaulting anyone until well into his second and final term

      Paula Jones filed her case in 1994, less than 3 years into his first term. The incident where he propositioned her and exposed himself was claimed to have occurred in 1991, so she didn’t sit on this for 20-30 years. She certainly didn’t right a glowing article about how wonderful the Clinton’s marriage seemed to be, days after the alleged incident.

      Gennifer Flowers brought forward her 12 year affair with Bill during the 1992 campaign. But that’s not exactly assault.

      Kathleen Willey didn’t bring forward her assault case until the 2nd term, but then the assault occurred during Bill’s first term in the Oval Office.

      The story of Juanita Broaddrick being raped by Clinton was out in 1992. The NYT and LAT decided not to run it, because she was afraid to speak to reporters. Now this could suggest that perhaps there was nothing really there. You’re welcome to make that claim, Jim; if you also admit such an unwillingness to discuss it also means there is nothing to the People’s magazine reporters story about Trump. Accept, I don’t recall Juanita writing an article praising Clinton’s marriage.

      But thanks to Hillary, we do know Kathy Shelton at age 12 was assaulted, that Hillary believed it to be true, and Hillary managed to get her rapist off on a technicality. The tapes of Hillary acknowledging all this were made to a reporter back in 1987.

        1. I don’t have a problem with a couple of guys talking about their interest in women during what was expected to be a private conversation. I don’t equate private conversations such as this to be action, particularly when no action appears to have occurred. I don’t even have a problem with a consensual affair, although I must admit a bit of an issue if the CEO shutdown his business to get one-on-one time with an intern looking for a job. But no problem with an older man getting a blow from a younger woman over the age of 18. Lucky him.

          But I’m not the one showing selective moral outrage or claiming that speech is an action or that all alleged rape victims be believed. I’m not Hillary or Jim.

        2. She didn’t laugh about getting him off, she laughed about things like the fact that his passing a polygraph destroyed her faith in polygraphs. So it’s wrong to ever laugh about anything, because someone might take it the wrong way and get offended? Talk about political correctness run amok….

          1. She didn’t laugh about getting him off?

            Actually she did.

            So it’s wrong to ever laugh about anything, because someone might take it the wrong way and get offended?

            That’s what Hillary is claiming. If she were President, it will also be a crime to make a movie critical of her.

          2. It proves she knew he was guilty. She was not obligated to defend him. She might defend him if there were some doubt. There was no doubt by Hillary.

      2. Paula Jones alleged harassment, not assault. There are problems with her story (“Several witnesses disputed Jones’s account, including her sister and brother-in-law. These witnesses contended that she had described her encounter with Clinton as “happy” and “gentle.” In addition, Jones had claimed to friends that Clinton had a “distinguishing mark” on his penis, a claim that was revealed to be false by investigators.[10]”).

        Broaddrick’s story was not public until 1999.

        1. Why do the Hillary campaign’s claims have more merit, even though there is zero evidence, than Bill’s victims?

          1. What Hillary campaign claims? There are a number of individual women who’ve alleged to reporters that Trump assaulted them. They seem to describe a consistent MO, which matches what Trump claimed as his behavior in the Access Hollywood tape. They have corroboration from friends that they told at the time, and other supporting evidence; as much or more than Bill Clinton’s two accusers (Willey and Broaddrick).

          2. What Hillary campaign claims?

            Are you pretending this is not part of her campaign?

            women who’ve alleged to reporters

            Once again, are you claiming that Hillary and the media are not coordinating on her campaign? Cause the emails prove they are coordinating.

            There is a clear pattern of coordination from scripting interviews, leaking debate questions, giving editorial control to the campaign, advising, running articles planted by her campaign, and on and on and on.

            And no, there isn’t any evidence provided. That doesn’t mean the allegations are or are not true but there is still no evidence. Certainly like nothing that rises to the standard we have seen with Hillary and the FBI.

          3. Consistent MO.

            That’s actually part of the problem. The accusations against Trump would be more credible if it was just one accuser. Six accusers all during October makes it certain it’s a lying campaign.

      3. Gennifer Flowers brought forward her 12 year affair with Bill during the 1992 campaign. But that’s not exactly assault.

        Doesn’t matter as Democrats are using Trump’s infidelity as a reason not to vote for him. Pointing out the Clinton’s history of infidelity is equivalent.

    3. Jim, you’re accused by many to be a slime ball. So let’s all just agree you’re guilty.

      Let me help ya Jim. Trump is a pig. But he’s our pig. He’s going to be a better president than Reagan. RR was the great communicator. Trump on the other hand, vulgar as he can be, is also right in principle in just about every case I’ve fact checked.

      Fact checking is not by finding a web page that agrees with you. Fact checking is when you find actual raw facts.

    4. Trump, by contrast, has been accused of sexual assault by about a dozen different women and counting.

      Zero evidence.

      I am sorry but we can’t trust on the honesty and honor of the Hillary campaign making accusations during an election year. They need to provide evidence.

      1. So a woman who claims she was assaulted, and told multiple people about it at the time, has “zero evidence”? Where does that leave Juanita Broaddrick?

          1. Because one group is larger and has better evidence, including the accused’s own words, and because only one of the accused is on the ballot.

          2. Wodun, did you notice that Jim is now trying to combine Trump accusations. At the same time, he’s ignoring the long list of women claiming from harassment to rape from Bill Clinton, including those that told many people at the time the event occurred. Not to mention the one that told Linda Tripp, while people like Jim were defending Clinton against Paula Jones lawsuit.

          3. Because one group is larger and has better evidence

            Hillary’s campaign has no evidence. The accusations could be true but there is no evidence they are true.

            Does the number of women make these types of things less wrong? Five is ok 10 isn’t? That means you really care about women? Also, there are a lot of women who have accused Bill with just as strong of evidence as what has Bill Cosby in court for and has caused him to become a societal outcast.

            and because only one of the accused is on the ballot.

            A vote for Hillary puts a rapist in the Whitehouse.

            If you want to talk about Hillary’s record, we can do that. Her policies have harmed more women and children than any other potential or actual President in our history. We can go back to the number scale if you want. A handful vs millions of dead, enslaved, and displaced women and children because Hillary armed, trained, and funded jihadis in Libya that became ISIS.

            What’s worse sex slavery or Trump? Genocide or Trump? Destabilization of the EU leading to Brexit or Trump? Iran getting nuclear weapons and engaging in regional war on many fronts or Trump?

            Then we could talk about all of the violence by Democrats. The attempted lynchings and ripping people’s clothes off organized by Democrats.

  2. Yes. Hollywood and artists in general have been “defining deviancy down” for the past sixty years. It is the failure of the Avant-garde movement, a movement which has dominated the art world since the fifties, and even earlier in Europe. The purpose of avant-garde is the “shock of the new”, and the only new one can find these days is by debasing culture. An utter failure of a movement I’ve ever seen. Not to mention that art is supposed to be political (i.e. propaganda for one political party.)

    Add to that a definite hatred of Christian morality. With friends from the Frankfurt School and Soviet money, the goal was to destroy America from within by destroying its morality. This has been an ongoing project for decades. These people donate copiously to the democrat party.

    Their outrage over this tape is manufactured, phony and any democrat who falls for it is a moron.

    1. Give me a break. Did Newt Gingrich have an affair with a subordinate because of Hollywood? Did Dennis Hastert molest children because of Hollywood? Did Donald Trump assault women because of Hollywood?

      Is it so hard to say that the behavior itself is wrong, and blame it on the offender?

      1. No, you give me a break. You mean you can’t see the clear decline of morality in this country since the sixties? Of course there is always rule breaking, but now that the bar is so low many people think previously immoral actions are okay. Many people, like you, think an illegitimate child is just fine, so is stealing, so is living off of other people’s money.

        Having an affair is wrong. Most republicans say it, which is why these people you mentioned are practically persona non grata to many republicans. Your side, on the other hand, doesn’t care at all about morality and lets the politicians keep their jobs. The Kennedy’s never lost their standing. Chris Dodd never lost his job, neither did Barney Frank for running a prostitution service in his house. And it goes on and on, and your side blithely ignores it.

        So quit with your high-mannered posturing. You look like an idiot just bringing it up.

        1. Having an affair is wrong. Most republicans say it, which is why these people you mentioned are practically persona non grata to many republicans.

          Are you serious? The GOP is totally fine with adulterers, from Ronald Reagan to John McCain to Rudy Giuliani to Newt Gingrich to Donald Trump. None of them lost their standing in the GOP simply because it was known that they’d cheated on their wives.

          1. So Republicans should be held uniquely accountable for infidelity but Democrats shouldn’t be held to any standard when it comes to conduct toward women?

          2. Of course Democrats should be held to account. Anthony Wiener is rightly a pariah. But lately it seems like it’s the GOP that gives its leaders a pass, even as the party touts itself as the party of moral values.

          3. Wow, you are really, really stretching it. Rumors are now truths? You know damned well that republicans face serious problems when caught having affairs. Democrats can get away with anything.

            Stop trying to play the moral equivalence game. You cannot win. Your side is teeming with louts who cannot, with a straight face, act with outrage at anything Trump has done.

          5. Anthony Wiener is rightly a pariah.

            Wiener wasn’t made a pariah. Huma only left him after about the third time his infidelity became public, and then only because it seemed Huma was not cool with his cheating, but fine if he did it front of their child. Once the child was brought literally into the picture was Wiener made a pariah.

          6. Of course Democrats should be held to account.

            Just not Hillary and Bill?

            the party touts itself as the party of moral values.

            The Democrats are the ones campaigning on moral superiority. Also, kinda BS to say you have no morals or ethics therefore you can do wtf you want.

      2. Apparently so. You can’t bring yourself to condemn the parade of Democrat sexual offenders, a specific known rapist and his enabling wife in particular.

        1. I take the rape accusation against Bill Clinton seriously. It may or may not be true, but it’d be enough to give me pause before ever voting for him again. But it’s certainly no reason to not vote for Hillary Clinton. Being married to someone and giving them the benefit of the doubt does not make you “enabling”. I would no more blame Hillary Clinton for Bill Clinton’s extramarital sexual behavior than I would blame Donald Trump’s wives for Trump’s.

          I’m happy to condemn Bill Clinton for his adultery, Anthony Weiner for his sexting, JFK for his philandering, etc.

      3. Is it so hard to say that the behavior itself is wrong, and blame it on the offender?

        Hillary had a chance to make such a statement about Kathy Shelton’s rapist; and she declined.

      4. Is it so hard to say that the behavior itself is wrong

        Not hard at all. So why do you (and yours) rocked headedly ignore this acknowledgement? Could it be that you don’t care about the truth?

        Sorry, that question answers itself, doesn’t it?

        What we know is Trump talks like a juvenile in private. What we also know is many of the accusations against Trump edit the story to put it into the worst light when there is actually some justification in his crude remarks.

        Example: He didn’t mock a disabled guy. He mocked an idiot that happened to be disabled. The idiot was arguing that his own reporting in the post was wrong because he wrote it before the narrative had been set.

        But most important is he’s being accused of SPEAKING.

        Hugging his daughter or acknowledging she is a beautiful woman is warped into a false allegation of incest.

        Trump has a libido. That’s not disqualifying of a leader. He could communicate better. But he could not be more right on a wide range of extremely important issues to Americans.

    1. The only problem with that story is that it’s false.

      Congratulations, Lou Dobbs. You figured out that Jessica Leeds lives in Manhattan, and the Clinton Foundation is also located in Manhattan. Very suspicious.

      Dobbs is symptomatic of the broad problems in the Republican Party that led to Donald Trump: These people will believe any lie, no matter how obvious, if it flatters their political preconceptions.

      2. The problem is believing any accusation in October. Accusations require no evidence to be effective. It’s dirty politics.

      3. The only problem with that story…

        Because you don’t care about the truth. The fact that she had the same phone number as the Clinton Foundation is actual evidence. The fact that the armrest doesn’t fit her story is evidence.

        The timing of the accusation by itself is reason to dismiss it.

      4. Does that woman really look to you like someone Donald Trump, a guy who has been surrounded by breathtakingly beautiful women all his life, would hit on?

        I don’t think so…

  4. Whichever candidate is bigger on raping our liberties is going to get State-shtuppin’ Jim’s support, and undying loyalty to that candidate’s party line. Anything else is just detail, and it’s a waste of time debating with Eloi.

  5. The supposed moral outrage of the Left is faked, so say the least. Michele Obama was supposedly “shaken to the core” by what Donald Trump said a decade ago. But she certainly didn’t mind accepting the help of someone who was actually a philanderer, with one of his conquests ending up dead in a car due to his criminal negligence – Teddy Kennedy.

    I remember Chappaquiddick. I also remember the cover-up by the press, and the fact that Kennedy in the senatorial election following Chappaquiddick, the Democrats in Massachusetts reelected him with 62% of the vote. A decade later, Chappaquiddick was only a minor issue in Kennedy’s run for the presidential nomination, and only because of Roger Mudd of CBS.

    Fred Barnes once noted that the whole Democrat party loves Teddy Kennedy. I’m sure they did, and still do. That fact alone invalidates any claim they may make to “outrage” over the lesser trespasses of anyone else.

  6. Face it Jim, you’re not going to win. Just stop. Everyone knows the democrats are sleezy.

    One reason, I think, young people gravitate to the democrat party is because it advocates irresponsible sex. The republican party is where the prudes go.

Comments are closed.