Schwarzenegger's Boorish Behavior

[Clancie]

Here's today's carefully researched LA Times article about Schwarzenegger's history of inappropriate and unwanted groping of various women over the past years (also his response to it):

Schwarzenegger's conduct with women (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/recall/la-me-women2oct02,1,2313555.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

"I've Behaved Badly" (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/recall/la-100203recall_lat,1,2036431.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

Please note the Times clearly says this was not given to them by anyone who has it in for him politically, and that none of the women approached the paper first. It was researched over many weeks, prompted by numerous accounts and rumors (Premiere and elsewhere) that have followed him--apparently, all true.

The article clearly shows him as an arrogant sexist boor, who likes to be surrounded by a lot of sycophants. Tolerable for a movie star....maybe Not exactly great for a governor.....

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Clancie
Here's today's carefully researched LA Times article about Schwarzenegger's history of inappropriate and unwanted groping of various women over the past years (also his response to it):

Schwarzenegger's conduct with women (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/recall/la-me-women2oct02,1,2313555.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

"I've Behaved Badly" (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/recall/la-100203recall_lat,1,2036431.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

Please note the Times clearly says this was not given to them by anyone who has it in for him politically, and that none of the women approached the paper first. It was researched over many weeks, prompted by numerous accounts and rumors (Premiere and elsewhere) that have followed him--apparently, all true.

The article clearly shows him as an arrogant sexist boor, who likes to be surrounded by a lot of sycophants. Tolerable for a movie star....maybe Not exactly great for a governor.....

Yes and they chose to release the article a week before the election because none of that information was available before?

The odd thing here is that Schwarzenegger was not some recluse who no one heard of. He's one of the most famous movie stars in the world, surely if those women had a case they would have filed lawsuits against him many times over. Yet they did not, why not?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Clancie
The article clearly shows him as an arrogant sexist boor, who likes to be surrounded by a lot of sycophants. Tolerable for a movie star....maybe Not exactly great for a governor.....
Unfortunately those are precisely the qualifications traditionally admired in U.S. politics. The man is not qualified to govern California or any other state. Lack of qualifications hasn't stopped many politicians and it won't stop him.

Man, I'm glad I live in Ohio, where the worst we get is Jerry Springer or Jim Traficant.

[a_unique_person]

As Bill Clinton showed quite clearly, many men in a position of power are notorious sex fiends. It seems to come with the territory, for some reason. The number of stories of politicians involved in affairs that come out after they have died (and can't sue), does amaze me. In the past, such behaviour was ignored by the press on the grounds that it was not relevant to the real issue of the politics.

However, I think you have to discern between acts of consent and acts of abuse. Arnie appears to be the type of guy who indulges in abusive acts.

For example, I was interested to hear that Bill Clinton was accused of rape. These allegations, which I would have thought were grounds for impeachment, didn't ever get pursued to the same extent as the Lewinsky charges.

[Clancie]

Posted by Pyrrho

Unfortunately those are precisely the qualifications traditionally admired in U.S. politics
Well, I agree Pyrrho that some politicians I can think of have arguably done worse than this (Ted Kennedy; Newt Gingrich) and still had great careers.

But if this article was about Gray Davis or McClintock or Bustamante doing these things instead, I think most voters would find it repulsive. I'm afraid with Arnold that the "cult of the movie star" will protect him and he's going to "govern" (some way or another, I try not to think about it) for the next four years.

I kind of envy you, Pyrrho there in Ohio.....

Posted by a unique person

As Bill Clinton showed quite clearly, many men in a position of power are notorious sex fiends.
Bill Clinton was hardly a "sex fiend". He had a pretty tepid and lackluster, imo, relationship with a woman who had said she wanted to have sex with the President before she even got to Washington. They never did have intercourse, and the details of their relationship (which are unfortunately known to us) hardly qualify him as a "sex fiend" (or even, imo, much of a sex partner).


However, I think you have to discern between acts of consent and acts of abuse. Arnie appears to be the type of guy who indulges in abusive acts.
Yes.

And the "rape allegations" against Clinton (like that other woman's claim that he dropped his pants in front of her in the hotel room) never had much credibility, except to the far right wing that worked so hard (and paid so much) to keep them publicized.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Clancie

But if this article was about Gray Davis or McClintock or Bustamante doing these things instead, I think most voters would find it repulsive.

Have you seen what those guys look like? God damn they are dorks. They should be banned from all sexual activty. Just thinking about those people being sexual makes me want to puke.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

Unfortunately those are precisely the qualifications traditionally admired in U.S. politics. The man is not qualified to govern California or any other state. Lack of qualifications hasn't stopped many politicians and it won't stop him.

Man, I'm glad I live in Ohio, where the worst we get is Jerry Springer or Jim Traficant.

I don't know even know what it means to be qualified to be a Governor. Davis was "qualified" but ran the state into the ground.

[Clancie]

Tony,

That's a really interesting new defense of Arnold. And, amazing as it seems, I'll bet there are some men who agree with you (like those described in the article who seemed to feel Arnold was just being "a real guy" with the degrading behavior to women at work).

I think that's what disturbed me the most actually....he hasn't been in government even one day yet, but he already is so well acquainted with what it means by "abuse of power".....

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Clancie
Tony,

That's a really interesting new defense of Arnold. And, amazing as it seems, I'll bet there are some men who agree with you (like those described in the article who seemed to feel Arnold was just being "a real guy" with the degrading behavior to women at work).

I think that's what disturbed me the most actually....he hasn't been in government even one day yet, but he already is so well acquainted with what it means by "abuse of power".....

Clancie, do you really thing Arnold did all that? Do you realize how much money those women would have gotten from sexual harassment lawsuits if those events really took place?

[a_unique_person]

I think you will find that Lewinsky was the only 'affair' that was made public. However, as I say, he was hardly the only politician to get up to this sort of behaviour, that is, not just the odd affair, but quite promiscuous behaviour. There are plenty more, from all sides of politics. Ditto sportsmen, rock stars, actors and powerful businessmen.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Grammatron

I don't know even know what it means to be qualified to be a Governor. Davis was "qualified" but ran the state into the ground.

"Qualifications" to hold office are a myth. As you just said, "qualified" guys can still do a sh!tty job. No, the idea of "qualifications" to be a leader is elitism, America was founded on the idea of populism.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
As Bill Clinton showed quite clearly, many men in a position of power are notorious sex fiends. It seems to come with the territory, for some reason. The number of stories of politicians involved in affairs that come out after they have died (and can't sue), does amaze me. In the past, such behaviour was ignored by the press on the grounds that it was not relevant to the real issue of the politics.

However, I think you have to discern between acts of consent and acts of abuse. Arnie appears to be the type of guy who indulges in abusive acts.

For example, I was interested to hear that Bill Clinton was accused of rape. These allegations, which I would have thought were grounds for impeachment, didn't ever get pursued to the same extent as the Lewinsky charges.

The difference is that Ahnold got it out of his system before going into office.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Grammatron

Clancie, do you really thing Arnold did all that? Do you realize how much money those women would have gotten from sexual harassment lawsuits if those events really took place?

I think most of the allegatiuons took place on movie sets. Ever been on a movie shoot? Things happen in those that most "normal" people would be shocked at. It is a crazy business with late hours and alcohol and drug use is common. There are women who hang around the sets just to be able to say they boinked a star. I wouldn't be surprised if these women were more upset that he didn't sleep with them than they were at his behavior.

[Skeptic]

Go figure. You'd think that Schwarzenneger, of all people, would be the last person on earth who would NEED to grope women in the first place. Somehow, I don't see him as someone who would have problems getting laid...

[Skeptic]

"Qualifications" to hold office are a myth.

I sure hope your dentist, doctor, or lawyer don't share that sentiment.

[Clancie]

Posted by skeptic

Go figure. You'd think that Schwarzenneger, of all people, would be the last person on earth who would NEED to grope women in the first place. Somehow, I don't see him as someone who would have problems getting laid...
You think groping someone is about getting laid? :confused: (Where are the women in this forum????)

I'm wondering how many people who've posted in Schwarzenegger's defense have even bothered to read through all the Los Angeles Times article..... (or any of the other reports that have been about these incidents in the past).

[DavidJames]

It's always fun to watch the conservative apologists crawl out to spin the problems with their folks. Today on display are beauties for Rush and now Arnold.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by DavidJames
It's always fun to watch the conservative apologists crawl out to spin the problems with their folks. Today on display are beauties for Rush and now Arnold.

Oh no, I don't apologize for Ahnold, Clinton or JFK. It's just that in California we are faced with a choice of Davis, Davis II or Ahnold. I'll take Ahnold any day over Davis or Mini-Davis.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by DavidJames
It's always fun to watch the conservative apologists crawl out to spin the problems with their folks. Today on display are beauties for Rush and now Arnold.

Spin? What spin? All I am asking is why those women never filed lawsuits -- sexual harassment lawsuits would net them millions of dollars even in Hollywood -- and why LA times printing this article now -- a week before the election -- instead of months before if these allegations are indeed so old.

[Tricky]

I said it about Clinton and I'll say it about Schwarzennager: a candidate's sex life has nothing to do with their ability to hold office. Clinton was one of the most randy (no offense Randi) little libertines the world has ever seen, but he was unfailingly supportive of women's causes . (One "harassment" case was thrown out because the accuser could not document a single incident where her career had been harmed, but lots of cases where it had been helped.)

And likewise, I don't care at all about Arnold's exploits, past or recent. The question is: "Can he do the job?" The answer I'm seeing is, "No way in hell". He has no experience in any sort of government capacity (other than being married to a Kennedy) and he is woefully bad at explaining what he's going to do. And I have no respect for sissies who won't debate.

[Clancie]

Tricky,

I have to disagree. Sexual harrassment is against the law. If anyone had made credible charges of harrassment against Clinton (the only credible relationship I know of were consensual--Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers), I'd have felt very differently about him.

Consensual sex is quite different, imo, from sexual harrassment.

And I hope people note that Schwarzenegger doesn't deny all these charges--he says he "doesn't remember" all the incidents of his past, admits some are true (but isn't specific about which ones) and "apologizes" to anyone who he behaved inappropriately toward.

Well, a governor's attitude toward women can affect policy decisions, too, including laws that are signed and vetoed. I think his admitted history of sexual harrassment (some incidents as recent as 2000) is unacceptable for the governor.

The comments he made to one woman were so vulgar that they could not even be repeated by anyone on CNN tonight....

.

[Clancie]

And, Grammatron,

As for lawsuits, some women would rather just complain to their family and friends than face the public criticism and investigation into their (irrelevant) past that would come from suing a popular movie star/idol.

I wouldn't want all the negative publicity (and negative career impact)t either. (Not to mention all the slurs..."He could have anyone...why would he act like that?" "She's pretty promiscuous, you know." "It's all about money, because she knows she can sue Arnold so falsely and get a lot of money"...on and on.....Sound familiar? :confused: ) Most women would just want to forget about it as quickly as possible....except for maybe confiding to their friends what a jerk he is....

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Tricky
I said it about Clinton and I'll say it about Schwarzennager: a candidate's sex life has nothing to do with their ability to hold office. Clinton was one of the most randy (no offense Randi) little libertines the world has ever seen, but he was unfailingly supportive of women's causes . (One "harassment" case was thrown out because the accuser could not document a single incident where her career had been harmed, but lots of cases where it had been helped.)

And likewise, I don't care at all about Arnold's exploits, past or recent. The question is: "Can he do the job?" The answer I'm seeing is, "No way in hell". He has no experience in any sort of government capacity (other than being married to a Kennedy) and he is woefully bad at explaining what he's going to do. And I have no respect for sissies who won't debate.

And I will repeat, California has been thrown in the toilet by "experienced" politicians. Name a politician who isn't artful at dodging specific questions about what he/she is actually going to do.

Why couldn't Ahnold do the job? He does have a record of being a successful businessman as well as a successful movie star. That's more than Bustamante can say. His record is one of being a career bureaucrat, hardly a success at anything but schmoozing.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Why couldn't Ahnold do the job? He does have a record of being a successful businessman as well as a successful movie star. That's more than Bustamante can say. His record is one of being a career bureaucrat, hardly a success at anything but schmoozing.
You are surprised that the people who run for office are politicians? Gosh, you must be horrified that most judges were once lawyers. :p

Maybe we should get some of those Enron "businessmen" to run for office. They have a great deal of experience in ruini.... uh I mean running California.

I haven't seen a lot of businessmen that have successfully made the transition to big time politics. Quite a few mayors have though. I don't know the backgrounds of all the governers, but I can only think of one President who was principally a businessman (albiet, not a successful one) before running for office. And we shouldn't misunderestimate him.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think you will find that Lewinsky was the only 'affair' that was made public. However, as I say, he was hardly the only politician to get up to this sort of behaviour, that is, not just the odd affair, but quite promiscuous behaviour. There are plenty more, from all sides of politics. Ditto sportsmen, rock stars, actors and powerful businessmen.

The Lewinsky incident was not because of the sex act. It was actionable only because it was concrete proof of perjury on the part of President Clinton. The other charges of rape, etc apparently did not rise to the level of provable fact. However, it is a fact that Lewinsky gave Clinton head...and also fact that he denied it under oath. That is the only reason the Lewinsky issue was so big. The sex itself was not illegal....merely tacky really.

-z

[Lurker]

Originally posted by rikzilla


The Lewinsky incident was not because of the sex act. It was actionable only because it was concrete proof of perjury on the part of President Clinton. The other charges of rape, etc apparently did not rise to the level of provable fact. However, it is a fact that Lewinsky gave Clinton head...and also fact that he denied it under oath. That is the only reason the Lewinsky issue was so big. The sex itself was not illegal....merely tacky really.

-z

What I find intriguing is the difference in strategy in comapring this to Iran-Contra. Clearly the infractions in that scandal were far more serious than a BJ. Yet the investigator at that time did not try for a perjury charge. They did not try to manipulate the prez or vice-prez into claiming no knowledge under oath even though they could have. And later documents certainly showed that at least Bush Sr had knowledge and most likely Reagan as well.

But the Attack-Clinton Machine did better by forcing him to deny it under oath. Well done, ACM, well done!

Lurker

[patnray]

Arnold: True Lies...

Did you really have group sex and smoke marijuana like you said in this magazine interview?

Arnold: I don't remember.

Did you violate the terms of your visitor visa by working for a weekly salary?

Arnold: I don't remember.

Did you grope these women?

Arnold: I don't remember.

Did you say you admired Hitler?

Arnold: I don't remember.

Seems he has a serious memory problem. He never actually denies any of it, he just can't remember. Much like Reagan...

Will he remember any of his campaign promises?

He could learn from Bush. When confronted by a potentially embarassing question, Bush answers a different question, rambling on and on without ever addressing the original question...

[Tmy]

Seems like there busting on a rock star living a rock star life. When did this happen anyway? Lastweek? 25 yrs ago?

Heres a famous guy whos probably messed wh countless star f'n Hollywood whores. Is this any suprise.

I think it silly to expect evryone to have spotless pasts.

[patnray]

I could accept that if he addressed his past honestly. The constant claim that he can't remember is either dishonest or he has a serious memory problem...

[Tony]

Originally posted by patnray
I could accept that if he addressed his past honestly. The constant claim that he can't remember is either dishonest or he has a serious memory problem...


Not necessarily. If you’ve done a lot of partying, met a lot of people, done a lot of drugs and had sex with a lot of people, everything begins to turn in to one big blur instead of separate memories.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by rikzilla


The Lewinsky incident was not because of the sex act. It was actionable only because it was concrete proof of perjury on the part of President Clinton.

Why in gods name was Clinton being questioned under oath about his affair in the first place?

I keep hearing that the problem was not sex, but perjury. But the perjury happened because they were asking him about his sexual affair with Monica.

You can't say it was about perjury and not sex, because the perjury only happened when he was being questioned about the sex.

[DavidJames]

"I keep hearing that the problem was not sex, but perjury."

I think it's a last gasp attempt to justify their complaints about Clinton while turning a blind eye towards Arnolds (and others) behavior. It's a transparent attempt to try and avoid what is a clear case of hypocrisy.

Edit to add: For the record, if what Arnold did was consensual, I don't give a crap about it and it doesn't contribute to my opinion about his ability to govern CA.

[gethane]

As a woman: Have any of you that are saying, "If these women were really sexually harassed, why didn't they come forward." ever BEEN sexually harassed? I have been, and yes, it was by a politician.

I interned (yes, go for the jokes) at the Missouri Capitol my senior year of college. The Deputy Lt. Governor was constantly making comments that made me uncomfortable. First I talked with a secretary, and she was like, "He's just like that." Then I talked with my direct supervisor (who was supervised by the Deputy Lt. Governor). You think he stopped? I told he made me uncomfortable, I told him I was married, he still leered at me and made "suggestions" about meeting him later.

What did i do? Nothing. You think the Lt. Governor of Missouri was going to believe me, an intern for the last few months, over his trusted Deputy Lt. Governor? Would I come forward if I heard he was running for a national office.. no. If someone came to me and ASKED me, would i tell them the truth... yes. Just like these women.

Think for a moment people. Even before Arnold ran, he had lots of fans and supporters. Screw the money, what would these women's lives had been like if they tried to accuse a liked and respected celebrity WITH old money and political ties?

Before these latest mudslinging fests, i personally had no trouble with arnold, i don't care about group sex or other things that happened 30 years ago. But some of this alleged harassment was just three years ago.

BTW, this was years ago, and no, i'm not going to tell you what year :)

[patnray]

Originally posted by Tony



Not necessarily. If you’ve done a lot of partying, met a lot of people, done a lot of drugs and had sex with a lot of people, everything begins to turn in to one big blur instead of separate memories.

i.e. Serious memory problem....

[Tony]

Originally posted by patnray


i.e. Serious memory problem....

You obviously dont understand.

[Clancie]

Posted by DavidJames

....if what Arnold did was consensual, I don't give a crap about it and it doesn't contribute to my opinion about his ability to govern CA.
:confused: Why not read the article?

That's the whole point of it, David James. That it was not consensual.

[DavidJames]

Clancie - I worded my response carefully. The accusations are just that accusations and I will not assume they are correct without proof. Yes, believe it or not, even some liberals will give people like Arnold the benefit of presumption of innocence :)

I will say if the accusations are correct he should face the full wrath of the consequences. I will also, sadly, predict it won't affect his popularity and he would still become CA gov., which would probably be sufficient punishment for him but definitely cruel and unusual punishment for the citizens of CA ;)

[Clancie]

Posted by David James

I will say if the accusations are correct he should face the full wrath of the consequences. I will also, sadly, predict it won't affect his popularity and he would still become CA gov., which would probably be sufficient punishment for him but definitely cruel and unusual punishment for the citizens of CA.

Hi David James,

Well, I admit I -do- kind of agree with your last sentence (not sure to make the response :) or :( ).

Just a bit curious....what kind of proof would convince you that what they said was true?

And just yesterday, another woman--nationally syndicated radio psychologist Joy Browne--talked publicly about Schwarzenegger's sexual harrassment of her when she interviewed him.Joy Browne comments (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-browne3oct03,1,1833803.story?coll=la-headlines-california)

I'm all for the presumption of innocence, too, David James, but when Schwarzenegger himself won't say he is innocent of wrong-doing (yet also won't specify which accusations are true....well, why wouldn't that give his accusers more credibility than ever?) But...I'm resigned...so, a bit curious what it will be like (as I just can't honestly picture he will like the job--or even like living in Sacramento. I wonder if he's really thought this through?)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Clancie


Hi David James,

Well, I admit I -do- kind of agree with your last sentence (not sure to make the response :) or :( ).

Just a bit curious....what kind of proof would convince you that what they said was true?

And just yesterday, another woman--nationally syndicated radio psychologist Joy Browne--talked publicly about Schwarzenegger's sexual harrassment of her when she interviewed him.Joy Browne comments (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-browne3oct03,1,1833803.story?coll=la-headlines-california)

I'm all for the presumption of innocence, too, David James, but when Schwarzenegger himself won't say he is innocent of wrong-doing (yet also won't specify which accusations are true....well, why wouldn't that give his accusers more credibility than ever?) But...I'm resigned...so, a bit curious what it will be like (as I just can't honestly picture he will like the job--or even like living in Sacramento. I wonder if he's really thought this through?)

The proof that would show him guilty would be two things: 1) Evidence such as video or photographs 2) A case that was ruled against Arnold. Wild accusations from unnamed sources a less than a week before the election is not a good way to prove something.

[DavidJames]

"Just a bit curious....what kind of proof would convince you that what they said was true?"

Very tough question and usually in public cases like this we never find out the whole story.

How will he do? I've always pointed back to prop 13 as the germ that grew into the beast you now have. The fact is people have an insatiable thirst for services and very little desire to pay for them. If he does nothing and the problems stay the same, I can guarantee you won't hear Republicans clamoring for another recall. You will see fingers pointing in every direction but inward. I expect that is what you will see a year from now. If nothing changes, it won't be Arnies fault, it's the teachers union, or the immigrants or the other unions or Clinton, the liberals, the media, Hollywood, the environmentalists, the Taliban, Saddam, pick one, pick em all :)

[patnray]

Originally posted by Tony


You obviously dont understand.

Well, let's see. He didn't deny the drugs and group sex, just that he didn't remember boasting about it in an interview. I guess if you do enough interviews you forget what you say...

He doesn't deny that he was paid weekly while on a visitor's visa. He claims he can't remember if he was paid weekly or not. One suspects if he was not he would remember enough to refute the story. But he won't release his immigration files to prove it wasn't so...

He doesn't remember groping those particular women. I suppose if one makes a habit of it with women you are only casuallty aquainted with that it would be hard to remember if you groped a particular one.

I do understand that his excuses don't paint him in any better light than his past behaviour.

But perhaps, like Nixon, this is the "New Arnold"....

[SRW]

Originally posted by Clancie


I'm all for the presumption of innocence, too, David James, but when Schwarzenegger himself won't say he is innocent of wrong-doing (yet also won't specify which accusations are true....well, why wouldn't that give his accusers more credibility than ever?) But...I'm resigned...so, a bit curious what it will be like (as I just can't honestly picture he will like the job--or even like living in Sacramento. I wonder if he's really thought this through?)

Lets see the most of the accusers remain anonymous but Arnold should remember which accusations are true?

Even though some said that at the time they thought it might have been playfulness, and not one of them reported it at the time?

And none of this comes out until the poll numbers have Arnold winning.

[Clancie]

David James,

No argument here! :)
Posted by SRW

Lets see the most of the accusers remain anonymous but Arnold should remember which accusations are true?
SRW,

How much of a memory does it take to say, "I never treat women like that" :confused:

As for being anonymous, well, here are a few accounts that weren't:
From "The LA Times"

E. Laine Stockton…had gone to the gym to watch her husband work out….As she sat on an exercise bench, Stockton said, Schwarzenegger walked up behind her, reached under her T-shirt and touched her bare left breast.

"The gym is full of bodybuilders and Arnold comes and he gropes my breast — actually touches my breast with his left hand," she said. She said Schwarzenegger then walked away without saying a word (Her ex-husband independently confirmed this to the Times).

Nancy Tafoya, who was also on the set of "Terminator 2," recalled her own encounter with Schwarzenegger. Tafoya….said she was talking with a group of people when Schwarzenegger came up behind her and yanked her long, black hair.

Her head snapped back, she said. Although she was not injured, Tafoya said she was "shocked." The people around her, she said, started laughing.

Another stuntwoman, Chere Rae Bryson said he used vulgar words for vagina and clitoris during her contact with him during the filming (of “Total Recall”).

"He was crude, boisterous and disparaging around women," she said. "In the makeup room, his language was so bad I turned around and walked out."

Joy Browne, a psychologist whose advice program is syndicated to nearly 200 stations nationwide, described on the radio an encounter with Schwarzenegger that took place during an interview…Schwarzenegger fondled her legs under the table during the interview, she said. Then, she said, he left his Gold American Express card in the studio and insisted that Browne personally return it to his hotel room.

She took her young daughter along to return the credit card. Schwarzenegger, she said, answered the door in tight pants, wearing no shirt. He had champagne. He asked her if her daughter could "take a walk for a while?" She declined.


British television host Anna Richardson….said she was interviewing the actor in December 2000…"He kept looking at my breasts, kept asking if I worked out," she said. "I went to shake his hand and he grabbed me onto his knee and he said, 'Before you go, I want to know if your breasts are real.' "

Richardson, then 29, said she replied that her breasts were real. She said she looked around for help from other people in the room, but nobody came to her assistance. "At that point, he circled my left nipple with his finger and he said, 'Yes, they are real.' " She said he then let her go.
One of the worst things about the Times article to me is that, over and over, it describes Arnold doing this in front of his male pals--men who apparently never contradict this behavior in any way--they just laugh right along with him while he does something degrading.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Clancie
David James,

No argument here! :)

SRW,

How much of a memory does it take to say, "I never treat women like that" :confused:

As for being anonymous, well, here are a few accounts that weren't:






One of the worst things about the Times article to me is that, over and over, it describes Arnold doing this in front of his male pals--men who apparently never contradict this behavior in any way--they just laugh and wink right along with him.

I never heard him say he did not do any of this. In fact he said he acted badly. Did you expect him to answer each allegation as this was still breaking?

[patnray]

Maybe the reason he didn't vote in 2/3 of the last 18 elections is that he forgot...

[rmacevoy]

What is amazing is the fact that one of these incidents happened in the year 2000 which is not that far back. Not in the body builders distant past, not even before his marriage to Maria. There are his own quotes about getting carried away on the set of T3 with holding the head of a "machine" in the toilet. This guy has a problem that appears to be basic to his character. Sometimes I wonder if his attraction to his wife is that she looks so much like a holocaust victim that he gets some kind of a thrill out of that. I won’t describe the sick image I have in my mind right now.
But maybe he is the perfect Republican candidate. He pretends he had a military service record like Bush and Reagan. He can't remember anything like Reagan and Bush again on Iran Contra. Experimented with substances in his youth like some people we know that wont talk about it. Partied up and drank a lot in his youth like Bush did. And he doesn't have a clue about what to do with the economy of the political unit he is about to take over. Yup that sounds about right.

[michaellee]

If anyone had made credible charges of harrassment against Clinton (the only credible relationship I know of were consensual--Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers), I'd have felt very differently about him.

So "credible charges of harrassment" include those made against Arnold S., documented by none other than the LA Times, by:

E.Laine Stockton, who hangs out at the local gym, bra-less in a t-shirt, watching men work out. And her husband, who musn't have
been working out too hard. Two stuntwomen, a psychologist, and a TV host.

And the accusations are swearing, and making improper sexual advances, and made against a body builder/actor.

And Arnold, without being specific, admits to behaving improperly in the past, and does not lie about it.

But "credible charges of harrassment" DO NOT include those made against Clinton, under oath before a Grand Jury, by:

Paula Jones, whom Clinton settled with for $800,000
Kathleen Willey, volunteer worker for the White House
Juanita Broaddrick, nursing home operator
A long list of many others but you don't care because they are not credible- they don't act for a living or perform dangerous stunts.

And these accusations are groping of genitals, breasts, pleas for oral sex, intimidation, threats of losing jobs, etc., and made against the President of the United States.

And Clinton, being specific, denies all allegations, at least until he is trapped and then must admit he LIED.

So let us recap!

Actor, body-builder swears and hits on women improperly 3-25 years ago, now admits his behavior was bad.

Clancie- Hang the guy, unbelievable behavior, disgusting. How could anyone vote for such a big, bad, evil man? UUGGHHH!

President of the US, gropes, performs, intimidates, denies, admits, lies, can't remember.

Clancie -If credible charges were made against my Billy, I would think differently about him! I can only hope that Congress passes that Amendment eliminating that 8-year presidential term limit thingy. He'll get my vote. Ooohhhh.

[Supercharts]

I, for one, am getting really upset at these constant comparisons to our beloved and esteemed Senator - Edward M. Kennedy.
Stop it you people!
Sen. Kennedy does lead a cult of mythology about Camelot and all that stuff so he had to grope, fondle and abuse women all of his life. Sure, he drove his former wife, Joan, into becoming an alcoholic with highly distructive behavior. Sure he also groped and fondled a lot of women. And that Kopechne thingy? But he's a star.
Since his cousin is married to Ahnold this is totally forgivable.
Right now he's behaving and hasn't had a Manhatten for at least a couple of days. :D

[Evolver]

Personally, I don't really give a crap if Arnold groped or not, or even if he once was a hitler fan.
I do find it telling that Repugs are able to look the other way at accusations of one of their own, when they were foaming at the mouth frenzied when all they to come up with against a to-remain-nameless Dumbocrat was that he got very horny.

And no, Ahnold doing it does not excuse you-know-who, it just exposes hypocrites who claim to be appalled by the behavior, but only by one side.

[crackmonkey]

It cracks me up that the LA Times rakes through the guy's past, and can only come up with an (apparently false, according to the NY Times) allegation of admiration of Hitler, and of adolescent locker-room behavior. Meanwhile, Gray Davis has been known to physically attack aides when his temper tantrums flare (as they are wont to do). Davis has the groper-in-chief Clinton helping his campaign... this is just too rich.

http://windsofchange.net/archives/004099.html

[CFLarsen]

crackmonkey,

I agree. It would be so easy to attack AS for his complete lack of political experience, but people choose to focus on this.

Seems that Comstock and Kafka did not live in vain. Sex sells far better than politics, and is much easier to be appalled at.

[davefoc]

I thought of Clancie as soon as I heard about the LA Times stories. At the time of her previous thread on this, I thought it was at least plausible that AS had acted badly, but that comparing his actions to Clinton's was an unjustified leap.

It now appears that AS has behaved more badly than I had thought and I am sorry about it. I think michaellee did a nice job of putting the best spin possible on this comparison and I think that there is substance to what she says.

I had a friend, who often talked in what might be called a vulgar way about the desirability of having sex with just about every woman that was around. I was uncomfortable with his approach. I never said anything to him about it though. I thought there might be some similarity to him and AS on this. He was from Hungary and I thought maybe there was a cultural difference going on there also.

Despite the fact that I think the claims against AS are at least partially true, I am still going to vote for him. My reasons are simple and self serving. I own property in CA, my close relatives all live here, my brother owns a business here and I am not looking forward to a major economic meltdown. I am not sure anything can be done to prevent it, but I think it is approaching certainty that if Davis is left in office it will happen.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by davefoc
Despite the fact that I think the claims against AS are at least partially true, I am still going to vote for him. My reasons are simple and self serving. I own property in CA, my close relatives all live here, my brother owns a business here and I am not looking forward to a major economic meltdown. I am not sure anything can be done to prevent it, but I think it is approaching certainty that if Davis is left in office it will happen.
I'm guessing that if AS gets elected and there is still a major economic meltdown, many will blame Davis anyway. It's a no-lose situation for Arnie.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Tricky

I'm guessing that if AS gets elected and there is still a major economic meltdown, many will blame Davis anyway. It's a no-lose situation for Arnie.

Well, that's a no-brainer :D

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by patnray
Maybe the reason he didn't vote in 2/3 of the last 18 elections is that he forgot...

And maybe that just makes him an average Californian. Here, it's gotten so bad that there are a lot of people I know of who just don't care enough and feel so powerless, that they don't bother to vote anymore. The only ones out there voting any more are the left-wing nut cases who are promoting the latest socialist agenda, and a few of us who still care.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
The only ones out there voting any more are the left-wing nut cases who are promoting the latest socialist agenda, and a few of us who still care.
Or perhaps the left-wing nut cases who are promoting the latest socialist agenda care more than most.

In any case, those who don't vote because they feel "powerless" deserve whatever they get. They have shown that they waste the small power they have, so why in the world should they be given more?

[davefoc]

Here's what Susan Estrich had to say about the last minute articles from the LA Times targeting Schwarzenegger:

http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=ses

I was surprised by her views. It is a rare public political person that talks candidly about the issues. It is rarer still to find one that will take a position unpopular with their party's establishment. Although, I am often not in sync with Susan Estrich's politics I think she is always well spoken and fair (kind of like Clancie). This editorial seems to be an example of both of these attributes.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Tricky

Or perhaps the left-wing nut cases who are promoting the latest socialist agenda care more than most.

In any case, those who don't vote because they feel "powerless" deserve whatever they get. They have shown that they waste the small power they have, so why in the world should they be given more?

I couldn't agree more. One of those I know who doesn't vote is a co-worker. I admit I sympathize with him somewhat, we both went through some nasty stuff at the hands of the government back in the sixties. But I always tell him this: "If you don't vote, OK, that's a valid political statement. The bean counters will add you to the list of those who don't care enough to vote and that says something about the sad state of politics. However, don't you ever complain to me about who is in office, because you did nothing to prevent him/her from being there."

[Clancie]

Here's AS, responding to the women's accusations of improper conduct on Saturday (Thursday was the day he apologized, sort of, for them. But three days later, it's all a bit different....)Schwarzenegger increasingly inventive with the excuses.... (http://www.msnbc.com/news/945950.asp?vts)

...The action star also said that “the environment in today’s politics is totally different on the subject of women, it is much more sensitive today.”
Excuse #1. He behaved like that because it used to be more acceptable. (The '80s? 90's?....Three years ago in 2000?.... :confused: )

He added that he will be “extra careful ... even if there is any move from a female on my part.”
Excuse #2: Sounds like implying women make advances to him and when he responds, his attention is misunderstood. (Um...did he even read the article? :rolleyes: Its not talking about a little inappropriate language and a "pat" here or there....The Oakland Tribune, withdrawing their endorsement, said some of the actions described constituted assault)

Schwarzenegger said he suspected the governor’s supporters were behind the allegations, but Davis has denied any connection. (The Times adds that they were not contacted by anyone about the story and their reporter was investigating on his own, based on allegations in Premiere, Oui, and elsewhere...)
Excuse #3

Its really Davis's fault.

....In Merced, where he was joined by his wife, Maria Shriver, Schwarzenegger joked briefly about the allegations, hugging a supporter at an In-N-Out burger but then pretending to resist, saying, “Don’t do it! Don’t do it! Otherwise it will be in the paper again.”

Excuse #4: It's all just a big joke!!!
:dl:

....jerk....
.

[Clancie]

davefoc,

That is an interesting article from Susan Estrich! I'm pretty surprised by her viewpoint (wonder if she still has it after Arnold's less-than-contrite-about-it statements on Saturday?)

Its all the more surprising that this is her background:

As a professor of sex discrimination law for the last two decades, and an expert on sexual harassment, I certainly don't condone the unwanted touchings of women that were apparently involved here. Whether they would amount to a case of sexual harassment under the legal standard that requires that harassment be severe and pervasive is far from clear.
Her main defense of him is pretty astonishing....

(1) that the women didn't file charges. Seriously, I'm surprised she thinks that matters? Would it have made the claims more credible? Or would they have been portrayed as bimbos trying to get attention...get money...blah, blah, blah.

Kind of understandable not to sue, isn't it, when you're "a nobody" and someone is a big star with a lot of flunkies willing to defend him and protect their own careers? Maybe Susan Estrich has been out of the courtroom too long, if she ever practiced law--since, come to think of it, I'm actually not sure that she did, because she was also a law prof back in the Dukakis days. It may make a difference, if you're used to handling real-life cases, as opposed to hypothetical classroom discussions of harrassment.

For example, she mentions "sex" but never mentions the issues of power and humiliation, which are much more associated with the kind of behavior described. Few people who have been on the receiving end of these kind of actions would feel it was about sex. I don't know what she's thinking, really.

(2) Her second criticism is that she seems to feel the timing is suspect.

Hmmm...The LA Times says "coincidence, this is when the story was ready," but, well, I have to agree with her that they may not have exactly delayed it, but it is obviously timed to promote bad press for Arnold close to the election.

However.....my question for her would be...."So what?" Even if she's right that it was timed "to get the most attention" (but also to give nearly a week for him to refute it)...well, if its all true, does that really matter?

The truth should be the main thing. If its true (and five more women came forward publicly Friday to tell similar experiences), then its news, and journalists have an obligation to report on it.

And if its true--as it seems to be, with even AS not able to deny it--then her idea that "its all just politics" really isn't fair imo.

Interesting article, dave, though truly a bit shocking! :eek:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
The idea of a woman suing AS over this, with all his celebrity and $$$ resources--and imagining your chances of winning plus the inevitable smearing of one's own reputation in the process --well, I think it would be a daunting prospect for any woman. Who would want to do it?)

Why is it so hard for you to believe that women can do it to AS (whom you do not like), when you know that several have done it to Clinton (whom you do like)?

Your ability to consciously select reality is truly amazing....

[crackmonkey]

Maureen Dowd has (gasp) a coherent moment about this...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/opinion/05DOWD.html?pagewanted=print&position=

(NY Times - free registration required)

[davefoc]

On the Susan Estrich column:
I actually agree more with Clancie than Susan Estrich on this. I was surprised at her take. I wondered if it didn't come out of a genuine attempt to be fair to someone not in her political camp.

But I also gave Schwarzenegger some credit for a more honest response than is usual from a politician. At this point he easily could have gone into complete denial mode and probably done better at the polls. I wonder if Clancie wouldn't agree that there is a sharp contrast here between Schwarzenegger's approach and say the Clinton's approach when dealing with damaging information.

On the Maureen Dowd column:
This sounded like routine partisan, blast my enemies stuff to me. There isn't anybody alive that hasn't said a few things that would prevent them from holding elective office if they were somehow released. Dowd knows this, Dowd also knows that Schwarzenegger is not a Nazi, Dowd also knows that intellectual musings about the skills of despicable people can easily be taken out of context and used to make the person making the comments sound in some way despicable also. Dowd knows all of this and yet she choses to blast away. Doesn't say much for her integrity in my mind.

[crackmonkey]

Did you read the same article that I linked to? Dowd's column was blasting NOW, Hilary, and the Dems for their selective outrage over Arnold's 'boorishness' while giving Bill Clinton a pass (while he was being accused of far worse).
Personally, while the allegations of Arnold's misbehavior are distasteful, they certainly were events in the past. He has said that he has misbehaved in the oast, and asked for forgiveness... contrast this with Clinton, who was alleged to have comitted rape and numerous sexual assaults while in office, and who went on to deny it and cover it up. No comparison.

[DavidJames]

"who was alleged to have comitted rape and numerous sexual assaults while in office, and who went on to deny it and cover it up. No comparison."

And don't forget Vince Foster and all the other people who mysteriously died because of that fiend :rolleyes:

[crackmonkey]

Was that the best rebuttal you can muster? I suspect so... this is a pretty obvious comparison, and many Dems find this hypocrisy distasteful. At least a few have the integrity to admit it.

[davefoc]

crackmonkey,
whoops, I'm not sure what I was reading or what I was on but I obviously got the gist of the Dowd article wrong.

Sorry,
Dave

[DavidJames]

Since you seem to believe every crackpot story about Clinton, I was just making sure you didn't miss any.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Evolver


And no, Ahnold doing it does not excuse you-know-who, it just exposes hypocrites who claim to be appalled by the behavior, but only by one side.

Yes those Hypocrites like that Davis guy who Campaigns with Clinton while claiming to be appalled by A.S.'s behavior.

:rolleyes:

[Clancie]

Posted by davefoc

I wonder if Clancie wouldn't agree that there is a sharp contrast here between Schwarzenegger's approach and say the Clinton's approach when dealing with damaging information.
Hi davefoc,

Well, yes I do agree there's a sharp contrast between Schwarzenegger and Clinton, but I'm not sure that its the same one you're thinking of. :)

Here are the contrasts I see:

Clinton's much investigated relationship with Monica Lewinsky
(and before that, with Gennifer Flowers) was 100% consensual.

Not one of the (now 15) women who've come forward in the last four days about Arnold's behavior toward them were consenting to it. He forced himself on them, and they all say they felt embarrassed, bullied, and degraded by the ways he did it.

Very different, imo. I don't feel AS has addressed his actions candidly at all, and he also seems to lack the most basic empathy for the women who have come forward. To me he seems very cocky and quite insulting toward them, actually.

[Clancie]

Posted by crackmonkey[B]

...the Dems for their selective outrage over Arnold's 'boorishness' while giving Bill Clinton a pass (while he was being accused of far worse).
Hmmm...crackmonkey....where to begin? :confused:

The only Clinton accusers I can think of are three (not 15), with very different stories (not the similar patterns described by the women talking about AS)....

Paula Jones--claiming the state troopers took her up to his hotel room where he dropped his pants. (Also claiming harrassment on the basis that she was denied raises, promotions, etc. afterwards...none of which was true).

I don't want to say something bad about Paula Jones, so I'll just say....if Clinton used state troopers to "procure" her to come to his hotel room, you'd think there'd be an awful lot more women that had experienced the same thing. Yet....(unlike the AS accusers)...there are none. I never found her the least bit credible (in addition to being totally obnoxious...oops! :( ).

Kathleen Wiley--who claimed Clinton's "comforting hug" on the traumatic day of her husband's death was actually some kind of groping. Well, again, she's the only one describing this--no others experienced the same or similar--and, under the circumstances, (if she's not lying), its possible that she was very emotional that day and misunderstood.

Juanita Broaddrick--who claimed Clinton "raped" her. However, she later signed an affadavit saying that he hadn't. Again, if he's a "rapist", why would she be the only one in his entire lifetime who experienced this treatment? It didn't even make any sense (and, again, did she lie about the rape? Or did she perjur herself when she signed the affadavit? Either way...not very convincing.)

As for what AS and Clinton said...well Clinton denied the three above attacks and there's no pattern of accusation there that supports their allegations. Each are so very different and, in Paula Jones case, may very well be politically (or monetarily) motivated. Its a fact that she profited financially from making these charges.
Posted by Crackmonkey

Personally, while the allegations of Arnold's misbehavior are distasteful, they certainly were events in the past. He has said that he has misbehaved in the oast, and asked for forgiveness... contrast this with Clinton, who was alleged to have comitted rape and numerous sexual assaults while in office, and who went on to deny it and cover it up. No comparison.
Well, the 3 charges against Clinton appear to be lies, for one thing. Denying a lie is not a bad thing.

The first day the AS story aired, AS was a bit contrite, although not exactly clear which accusations he was admitting and which he was denying. His "I'm sorry if I offended anyone" was pretty weak, but, yes,...a start.

However, as time has passed, he's gotten more and more cocky. I posted his statements yesterday--saying the stories are "dirty politics that Davis is known for"...ridiculing the women he offended...making a joke about it really being women coming on to him and his (natural male response) being exaggerated and misinterpreted....

Just more and more "good ol' boy-ism" as far as I can see. Crude, vulgar, boorish, tacky. Lots of rationalization. Lots of shifting the blame.

Nope, not impressed in the slightest. :(

Apart from the (very important) issue of consent, to me, that is a huge contrast between Clinton and Schwarzenegger's conduct.

If this was women coming forward describing having an affair with AS, I would say a great big, "So what?" Really, just like with Clinton, it might make you think he's not a very great husband (and not much of a boyfriend either :rolleyes: ), but sex between consenting adults is none of my business, imo, no matter who they are.

Sexual harrassment--which could have been misdemeanors and a felony if all the accounts are true--is serious. Schwarzenegger's lack of remorse or taking responsibility for the obvious distress he caused these numerous women just underscores the idea that it was a power trip all along.

Oh well, I'm prepared that he will win on Tuesday. :( Should be an "interesting" 3 years.....

[SRW]

Originally posted by Clancie

As for what AS and Clinton said...well Clinton denied the three above attacks and there's no pattern of accusation there that supports their allegations. Each are so very different and, in Paula Jones case, may very well be politically (or monetarily) motivated. Its a fact that she profited financially from making these charges.

Well, the 3 charges against Clinton appear to be lies, for one thing. Denying a lie is not a bad thing.

The first day the AS story aired, AS was a bit contrite, although not exactly clear which accusations he was admitting and which he was denying. His "I'm sorry if I offended anyone" was pretty weak, but, yes,...a start.

However, as time has passed, he's gotten more and more cocky. I posted his statements yesterday--saying the stories are "dirty politics that Davis is known for"...ridiculing the women he offended...making a joke about it really being women coming on to him and his (natural male response) being exaggerated and misinterpreted....

Just more and more "good ol' boy-ism" as far as I can see. Crude, vulgar, boorish, tacky. Lots of rationalization. Lots of shifting the blame.

Nope, not impressed in the slightest. :(

Apart from the (very important) issue of consent, to me, that is a huge contrast between Clinton and Schwarzenegger's conduct.



Clinton got up in-front of us all and proclaimed "I did not have sex with that woman Monica Lewinsky" something which he denied for 8 months, that is until DNA proved the truth...

Was there a pattern of Clinton having sex with interns? Or was Monica the only woman Clinton has ever approached? So when Clinton Denys something (and we know he lied about Monica) it must be true. But when Schwarzenegger Denys something he is boorish.

Now Schwarzenegger did not flat out denying all the allegations, he is saying some are true and some are false or exaggerated. Are you claiming none of the accusations could possibly be politically motivated?

[Clancie]

Posted by SRW

Clinton got up in-front of us all and proclaimed "I did not have sex with that woman Monica Lewinsky" something which he denied for 8 months, that is until DNA proved the truth...
SRW,

A couple of points....

Clinton said he did not "have sex" with her, meaning "have intercourse". Some of us might have a broader definition of "having sex" than his, but many also share his feeling that "intercourse = having sex". I'm sure someone here will disagree vehemently about this, but I didn't think that was even a lie. (In addition to being completely and utterly irrelevant to anything of any importance to the nation whatsoever....)
Posted by SRW

Was there a pattern of Clinton having sex with interns?
What makes you think there was a "pattern"? Not a single other person, intern or otherwise, has claimed that he did. (Unlike the barrage of women with negative Arnold experiences to relate....)
Posted by SRW

Or was Monica the only woman Clinton has ever approached?
Actually, SRW, if you read the record, she approached him.
Posted by SRW

So when Clinton denies something...it must be true. But when Schwarzenegger denies something he is boorish.
:confused:
Its not the AS denial that is boorish (though he's developing that quality in it as time goes by)...its his actions that are boorish. Did you read all these articles, including the latest today?

Can you really keep rationalizing that (1) women are just making it all up, or (2) its really "no big deal"?

I just can't understand what you're thinking about this, SRW, and why this isn't more appalling to you. Maybe you can explain? :confused:

more Schwarzenegger (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/recall/la-me-women5oct05,1,4083033.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Is it just me, or should someone who actually uses the name "E.Laine" have the crap slapped out of them?

[michaellee]

quotes all originally posted by Clancie


if Clinton used state troopers to "procure" her to come to his hotel room, you'd think there'd be an awful lot more women that had experienced the same thing. Yet....(unlike the AS accusers)...there are none. I never found her the least bit credible (in addition to being totally obnoxious...oops! ).

Well, again, she's the only one describing this--no others experienced the same or similar--and, under the circumstances, (if she's not lying), its possible that she was very emotional that day and misunderstood.

Again, if he's a "rapist", why would she be the only one in his entire lifetime who experienced this treatment?

Clinton denied the three above attacks and there's no pattern of accusation there that supports their allegations.

Clancie's defense of Clinton is based on the fact that there should of been more women to come forward reporting similar experiences, and that the women were not credible or just misunderstood.

Yet in the AS matter, Clancie defends AS accusers with statements including:

Her main defense of him is pretty astonishing....

(1) that the women didn't file charges. Seriously, I'm surprised she thinks that matters? Would it have made the claims more credible? Or would they have been portrayed as bimbos trying to get attention...get money...blah, blah, blah.

Kind of understandable not to sue, isn't it, when you're "a nobody" and someone is a big star with a lot of flunkies willing to defend him and protect their own careers?

For example, she mentions "sex" but never mentions the issues of power and humiliation, which are much more associated with the kind of behavior described

As for lawsuits, some women would rather just complain to their family and friends than face the public criticism and investigation into their (irrelevant) past that would come from suing a popular movie star/idol.

I wouldn't want all the negative publicity (and negative career impact)t either. (Not to mention all the slurs..."He could have anyone...why would he act like that?" "She's pretty promiscuous, you know." "It's all about money, because she knows she can sue Arnold so falsely and get a lot of money"...on and on.....Sound familiar? ) Most women would just want to forget about it as quickly as possible....except for maybe confiding to their friends what a jerk he is....


So, Clinton's accusers, the ones who came forward and testified in a lawsuit, were lying or misunterstood Clinton's advances.
And Clinton's accusers, the ones who did not come forward, should have, and because they did not, this lets Clinton off the hook because there is no pattern of behavior.

But, AS accusers, the ones who came forward only in a LA Times interview without filing lawsuits, are all telling the truth and all completely comprehended what AS behavior consisted of.
And they did not file lawsuits because of the fear of retribution, humiliation, investigation, or they may look like bimbos trying to get attention.

Well Clancie, you can't have it both ways, based on who the accused person is or what party he belongs to. AS accusers do not file lawsuits and thats ok, but the Clinton accusers not coming forward prove no pattern of behavior and his innocence.

And those who did testify in a lawsuit against Clinton were subjegated to retribution, humiliation, and being called bimbos- of course only by the defenders of Clinton, like Clancie, who only believe this if the accused is Bill Clinton, and then use this as the defense of those not filing lawsuits against AS. Typical liberal thinking.

Is the fear of retribution, humiliation, and investigation greater coming from, lets say, the President of the United States, or a popular movie star?

I don't think it would matter to those supporting Clinton to this day. They just will not let their partisan politics allow them to see their sheer hypocrisy when it comes to how they view these two men's actions.

I can provide a different scenario-

If Clinton's accusers had not testified in a lawsuit and made their charges public only in a newspaper article, then Clancie and the rest of the Clinton supporters would have been crying that if these women's charges had any merit, they would file a lawsuit or otherwise they are complete right-wing rhetoric and just another attempt to get Clinton out of the White House.

But because Clinton's accusers did testify during the PJones lawsuit, this made them all liars, or misunderstood what took place.

But AS accusers who did not file lawsuits and only made their charges public in a newspaper article, their charges are completely valid and should not be discredited because of the lack of a lawsuit. After all, they shouldn't have to go through the humilation and retribution they will surely face from the right-wingers.

If AS accusers actually filed lawsuits against him, Clancie and the Clinton supporters would then use the following statements to support these poor, sexually assaulted victims of AS:

"Why would these women file lawsuits, put themselves through this ordeal of being humilitated and called bimbos, if what they say is not true?"

[subgenius]

Anyone have the slightest idea of the origin and purpose of California's recall law?

[michaellee]

In the early 1900's, the Southern Pacific Railroad, and several other companies, had substantial influences over most of the California politic. One candidate for governor, Hiram Johnson, campaigned mostly against corruption, promised to get rid of the powerful companies political influence over the state, and won the election due to the public's hatred of the system.

It was Johnson who lobbied for a statewide recall measure to give the California citizens the right to recall what he labeled "a recalcitrant official." The California recall law was adopted and ratified as part the state Constitution in 1911.

[Clancie]

michaellee (and anyone else who shares the apparent viewpoint that AS did no wrong--there seem to be many!)....

Let's forget about Clinton. Even if he did as you said, he certainly was legally investigated over it for several years, it cost a lot of $$$, he was humiliated around the world, and on and on. The "price to pay" may not have been one that you wanted for him, but he did "pay a price", guilty or no.

So...let's forget Clinton for now--its old news anyway--and look at California.

What about Arnold? What's the argument his supporters are making? That these women are making it all up?

I don't see why we'd think they're lying when even AS doesn't totally deny what has been said--nor is he able to distinguish for us which he did and which he did not do, although he denies "some".

So, why should he get a "pass"? Do you think the behavior described just doesn't matter? Or that they're lying? Or do his supporters want a Republican governor so badly that they're willing to look the other way on judging right and wrong when it concerns him?

I hope someone can help out here. I don't understand how these things can just be "dismissed". If 15 women came out to say this about Bustamante, and he couldn't deny it, would you still feel essentially that "it doesn't matter"?

[subgenius]

There is probable cause to believe that he has committed several sexual batteries. He will and should be recalled.

[davefoc]

Clancie said:
Clinton said he did not "have sex" with her, meaning "have intercourse". Some of us might have a broader definition of "having sex" than his, but many also share his feeling that "intercourse = having sex".

Clancie this is complete, unadulterated crap. Clinton lied by any possible definition of the word. Immediately after he said the above he went on to say that he hadn't been alone with her, eliminating any possible semantic defense. His meaning was exact and exactly a lie. That is why the judge fined him and that is why he lost his license to practice law for a period of time.

Repeating this laughable defense suggests that you indeed are using a double standard.

Personally, I think it more likely than not that Schwarxenegger behaved badly and perhaps may have been guilty of what I suspect would be called misdemeanor sexual battery. I am sorry about that. I am sorry that the person I am voting for is guilty of something like that. I also agree that mostly anonymous people coming out days before an election are not entirely credible. If we are to give too much credibility to people like this then our entire election process could be held hostage by a few activists who decide to make last minute unfounded charges.

Who exactly would you vote for in this election? Bustamante, awash in Indian gaming money, a member of a racist organization who can't give a straight answer to whether he disavows the most racist statements of that organization.

Perhaps instead Gray Davis. A governor who has led California to the brink of disaster with incompetence and a complete inability to stand up to a legislature that have spent like "drunken sailors" according to the most liberal publication in Orange County. What are you going to say to the thousands of workers who lose there jobs because of an out of control worker's comp system designed to make rich trial lawyers and medical providers?

[Clancie]

Posted by davefoc

Clancie this is complete, unadulterated crap. Clinton lied by any possible definition of the word. Immediately after he said the above he went on to say that he hadn't been alone with her, eliminating any possible semantic defense. His meaning was exact and exactly a lie. That is why the judge fined him and that is why he lost his license to practice law for a period of time.
Say, don't get too upset! After all, Clinton's gone! So, let's just agree that he lied. My position at the time about it was the same as it is now--sexual relationships between consenting adults are none of my business. Lies about them are important to the people involved. I'm sure we disagree, but my strong feeling is that Clinton doesn't owe me, as a voter, any accountability (and shouldn't be legally interrogated) about his sex life. That's what I thought then, and what I still think. People continue to disagree about this--vehemently--but Clinton's gone. I kind of hate to refight that battle when it doesn't apply to things today (well, except the question of whether Dems or Republicans are using a double standard for AS).


Repeating this laughable defense suggests that you indeed are using a double standard.
My other point is that consensual sex between adults is none of my concern. I would feel exactly the same way about Schwarzenegger. Exactly the same.

The problem is that nothing described by 15 women was consensual--and some of it was really quite intimidating, maybe even frightening. He -is- a physically intimidating presence, and if he decided to push you around against your will, I could see being a little worried how far he might be willing to go.

I also agree that mostly anonymous people coming out days before an election are not entirely credible.

Let's not forget that 10 of the 15 women -have- identified themselves and told their stories publicly.

Personally, I think it more likely than not that Schwarxenegger behaved badly and perhaps may have been guilty of what I suspect would be called misdemeanor sexual battery. I am sorry about that. I am sorry that the person I am voting for is guilty of something like that.
Yes, davefoc. And I'm sorry to say that after seeing his attitude this weekend, I think you and some of AS's other supporters feel worse about his actions than he does. :(

[Clancie]

Who exactly would you vote for in this election?
Actually, I don't know. I don't blame Davis for all the things you do, but I'm also a bit disgusted by all the money wasted in educational testing these past years--a political move, imo, and $$$ that could be better spent elsewhere (like, the classroom).

I didn't like him not firmly disavowing the "Nazi" thing about AS, either. Instead he sort of seemed to embrace it. And his comment that someone who would support Nazism "wasn't a real American" seemed like a real low blow about him being from Austria.

But I also don't like the recall, because Davis was elected a year ago and I think it sets a very bad presedent. It was intended for extreme cases--like criminality--and there's no evidence of anything like the law intended. The voters chose him over Simon and this is a back door way to get Republicans making executive decisions after all, using a charismatic front man, imo. I think its a bad idea to encourage this.

So..."No" on the recall. And....Bustamante's probably okay. I don't see anything worse about taking Indian money legally earned than taking any other corporate donation. (The Morongo Valley Indians had a commercial for McClintock the other day). I'm sure Schwarzenegger has accepted corporate contributions from people who expect a lot more favoritism than the Indians do, since they're pretty much a law unto themselves anyway (and he lied that they don't pay anything to the state, which I didn't think was right to do).

Haven't been impressed by Bustamante, but I'm going to read more info today. Can't vote for McClintock--I don't support a single social policy he advocates, although I also think he's the only one of "the Big 3" who's come out with economic specifics of what he'd do about the deficit.

Guess it's no suprise to you that Schwarzenegger isn't even a "maybe". No experience....not even a "desk job"...not very educated and apparently not even self taught or a "reader" from what I saw on LKL...then the sexual misconduct/bullying/rationalizations....No, he's out on my list.

So, maybe Bustamante. Or maybe I'll throw my vote away symbolically on Cameho, the Green Party candidate. He's got some good ideas and no chance of winning. But isn't that just like casting a vote for Arnold? :confused:

Oh....How many days do we have left again? :rolleyes:

[SRW]

Originally posted by Clancie
What about Arnold? What's the argument his supporters are making? That these women are making it all up?

I don't see why we'd think they're lying when even AS doesn't totally deny what has been said--nor is he able to distinguish for us which he did and which he did not do, although he denies "some".

So, why should he get a "pass"? Do you think the behavior described just doesn't matter? Or that they're lying? Or do his supporters want a Republican governor so badly that they're willing to look the other way on judging right and wrong when it concerns him?

I hope someone can help out here. I don't understand how these things can just be "dismissed". If 15 women came out to say this about Bustamante, and he couldn't deny it, would you still feel essentially that "it doesn't matter"?


The problem Clancie is the timing, if this had come out two weeks ago then AS would have time to investigate each of these calms. Now I do not know if all are true or some are true, but to have all this come out so close to the election is nothing but suspicious. If it had come out two weeks ago, and AS had the time to refute the statements, and he could not, then I would not be supporting him.

Many of these are hard to prove, but can be disproved with the proper amount of time. For example it an incident was alleged to have occurred on Feb 2 1988 in LA , and then AS shows he was in London on that day, well what happens to that story?

No the stories came out to close to the election for me to drop all skepticism and jump on the Anti-AS bandwagon.

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

Funny. You spend a lot of posts about Clinton in this thread, but when you are shown to be a hypocrite, you want us to forget all about him.

Very funny.

I also loved your definition of "sex=intercourse". Perhaps you could explain the term "oral sex".

[Clancie]

Posted by SRW

If it had come out two weeks ago, and AS had the time to refute the statements, and he could not, then I would not be supporting him.
Thank you, SRW, for giving a coherent reason for continuing to support him while not approving of this behavior, if it is true.

I guess I don't understand, though, what would require a lot of time or research on his part to say, "I never have treated women this way."

For example, if you were AS and had worked with a woman named Tamee Smith on "Predator" wouldn't you be able to say pretty quickly, yes or no, to the following description of what she claims you did to her?


Smith said the encounter occurred after location shooting (on "Predator"), while actors were doing special-effects work in the Los Angeles area. She said Schwarzenegger had appeared at a producer's office on the Fox studio lot, looking for her boss, who was not there. Schwarzenegger said he would wait, according to Smith.

Smith said that when she got up to use the bathroom, Schwarzenegger followed her. She said the two were alone in the office, which she described as a converted bungalow. "I wasn't even all the way in. I don't think the door was closed, and he was right behind me." Smith said.

"He grabbed me from behind with his right hand. He clamped it over my boob and was wrestling with me. He was just basically saying he wanted me and I was saying, 'No, no, no.' "

She said he then asked about her breasts: " 'Are they real? I want to know, are they real?' He wouldn't let go. I fought him. The size of his biceps coming across my chest, they were enormous. I couldn't get away from him at all. It wasn't until I said something about Maria" Shriver, his wife, she said, "that he dropped me, dropped me fast and walked out of the bathroom and out" of the bungalow.

Afterward, she said, she remained in the bungalow and cried. "I was upset," she said. "I was scared. I was all those things. Eventually, my girlfriend came in, and I told her what happened."

That girlfriend, Elaine Thompson, also a crew member on the film, told The Times that Smith was "very shaken."

Seriously, in Schwarzenegger's position, how difficult (or time consuming) would it be to say, "That is a total and complete lie"? The burden of proof is on the accuser. His comments obviously make it look like he doesn't want to say people are lying if he knows perfectly well that they aren't.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Clancie



Seriously, in Schwarzenegger's position, how difficult (or time consuming) would it be to say, "That is a total and complete lie"? The burden of proof is on the accuser. His comments obviously make it look like he doesn't want to say people are lying if he knows perfectly well that they aren't.

He denied three of the four that came out on Sunday, and said he did not know anything about the forth. Again he does not have the time to refute each claim, especially as some may have a degree of truth to them.

As someone who behaved badly during the 70's and 80's I sure would have a hard time recalling all the things that went on in Disco, bars and parties.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by SRW


He denied three of the four that came out on Sunday, and said he did not know anything about the forth. Again he does not have the time to refute each claim, especially as some may have a degree of truth to them.

As someone who behaved badly during the 70's and 80's I sure would have a hard time recalling all the things that went on in Disco, bars and parties.
But of course you're not running for governor of California, or are you?
Sexual battery is relevent, and he refuses to even answer the question:

http://drudgereport.com/flash1aj.htm

[subgenius]

"No the stories came out to close to the election for me to drop all skepticism and jump on the Anti-AS bandwagon."

One of the problems with having a lynch mob election. There is actually a benefit to acting with deliberation.

[SRW]

Originally posted by subgenius

But of course you're not running for governor of California, or are you?
Sexual battery is relevent, and he refuses to even answer the question:

http://drudgereport.com/flash1aj.htm


Well I have to wait for the next recall to run. Ask me again next week.


Again they are only relevant if true, and recent, at least in my opinion. I did a lot of things back then that I would never dream of doing now, does that make me a bad person? There were lots of things going on then that, while normal for the time, are not acceptable now.

[SRW]

Originally posted by subgenius
"No the stories came out to close to the election for me to drop all skepticism and jump on the Anti-AS bandwagon."

One of the problems with having a lynch mob election. There is actually a benefit to acting with deliberation.

Oh I think 11th hour Revelations will always come out not matter how organized the election is.

[Clancie]

subgenius,

Interesting Jennings interview with AS in your Drudge report link. I thought this part was especially telling:

SCHWARZENEGGER: It doesn't make any sense to go through details here with you.

What is important is--what is important is that I cannot remember what was happening 20 years ago and 15 years ago. But some of the thing sounds like me and this is why I was the first one to come out and say, ``You know, some of the things could have happened.'' I want to apologize to the people if I offended anyone, because that was not my intention.

JENNINGS: Do you think that that's...

SCHWARZENEGGER: ... and I'm sorry.

JENNINGS: ... enough?

SCHWARZENEGGER: I'm sorry about it. Well, let me tell you something, that no one every came to me in my life and said to me that I did anything, then said, ``I don't want you to do that and you went over the line, Arnold.'' Now, all of a sudden, isn't it odd that three days and four days before the campaign, all of a sudden, all these women want to have an apology? Isn't it odd?

JENNINGS: Are you blaming the women?

SCHWARZENEGGER: I mean, you have common sense, Peter. You can figure it out for yourself.

JENNINGS: Are you...

SCHWARZENEGGER: Come on now.

JENNINGS: ... well, no, you figure it out for me.

SCHWARZENEGGER: I mean, no, no, no, no. But I'm just trying to tell you, you know it and I know it.

END
Not much of a denial of wrongdoing and not much of an apology. (Also how convenient to ignore the events that were alleged from only three years ago. SRW, I don't care about what you did 20 years ago, but if we're talking about 2000, don't count on my vote! :p)

Same old, same old. Blame the victim. Pretty interesting, though, how he tries to rely on the "old boy's network" to get Jenning's complicity in acknowledging this is just how women are and that they're probably making it up for political reasons...but Jennings isn't buying it.

Schwarzenegger is going to find dealing with people on an intellectual basis as governor is not quite the same as the power trip and manipulative advantages of dealing with fans and flunkies first as Mr. Universe and then as an international movie star.

[michaellee]

Originally posted by Clancie
michaellee (and anyone else who shares the apparent viewpoint that AS did no wrong--there seem to be many!)....

Let's forget about Clinton.


I at no time stated anything of the sort. My earlier post neither defended nor accused either AS or Clinton; I simply stated facts followed by my interpretation of those facts- looking back I cannot find the "AS did no wrong" comment, nor anything close to that meaning. Apparently not everyone posting read the entire post. And "Let's" forget about Clinton?
CFL took the time to read my earlier post and says it best---

Funny. You spend a lot of posts about Clinton in this thread, but when you are shown to be a hypocrite, you want us to forget all about him.

Very funny.


At the same time, very sad. It must be nice to post one's opinion so as to illicit a response; get one that you don't like to see, and be able to so easily dismiss it without a thought......

[Clancie]

Michaellee,

If you find the allegations of sexual harrassment against Clinton so compelling even though they were not proven in court (and, yes, I'd like to see that "long list"), I wonder why you find the much worse testimonials against Schwarzenegger so -apparently-easy to deride and dismiss?

[SRW]

Originally posted by Clancie
subgenius,

Interesting Jennings interview with AS in your Drudge report link. I thought this part was especially telling:

Not much of a denial of wrongdoing and not much of an apology. (Also how convenient to ignore the events that were alleged from only three years ago. SRW, I don't care about what you did 20 years ago, but if we're talking about 2000, don't count on my vote! :p)




Like I said it is only relevant if it is true or recent I didn't ignore the 2000 allegation I just do not know if it is true.

Now I know why you believe Clinton, you love to parse words don't you.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Clancie
Michaellee,

If you find the allegations of sexual harrassment against Clinton so compelling even though they were not proven in court (and, yes, I'd like to see that "long list"), I wonder why you find the much worse testimonials against Schwarzenegger so -apparently-easy to deride and dismiss?

ARNOLD WINS IN LANDSLIDE!!!!

...oh...sorry....that's tomorrow's post.

-nevermind-

-z

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Michaellee,

If you find the allegations of sexual harrassment against Clinton so compelling even though they were not proven in court (and, yes, I'd like to see that "long list"), I wonder why you find the much worse testimonials against Schwarzenegger so -apparently-easy to deride and dismiss?

Do you really consider a man being a "boor" (your own term") worse than cheating on his wife?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by rikzilla


ARNOLD WINS IN LANDSLIDE!!!!



He lives in Malibu.


The headline will read:


ARNOLD WINS IN MUDSLIDE!!!!!!

[Silicon]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Do you really consider a man being a "boor" (your own term") worse than cheating on his wife?

I would consider grabbing a stranger's breast (assault) worse than consentual sex. Yes.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Silicon


I would consider grabbing a stranger's breast (assault) worse than consentual sex. Yes.

Yup to that.

And watch what you ask for you might get it:

Schwarzenegger Win Could Have Downside for Bush

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/06/politics/06CALI.html?th

[subgenius]

Originally posted by rikzilla


ARNOLD WINS IN LANDSLIDE!!!!

...oh...sorry....that's tomorrow's post.

-nevermind-

-z

And the day after tomorrow:

"Recall Petitions Circulating As Police Investigate Guv. Arnie For Sexual Assaults!"

Those who live by the recall......

[SRW]

Originally posted by Silicon


I would consider grabbing a stranger's breast (assault) worse than consentual sex. Yes.


I would also.


But before I would convict someone I sure would want to have all the facts.

[michaellee]

Originally posted by Clancie

If you find the allegations of sexual harrassment against Clinton so compelling even though they were not proven in court (and, yes, I'd like to see that "long list"), I wonder why you find the much worse testimonials against Schwarzenegger so -apparently-easy to deride and dismiss?


Are you directing this question to me?

If so, when did I write that I find "the allegations of sexual harrassment against Clinton so compelling.." ??

What is this "long list"???

And when did I state that I easily dismissed the testimonials against Schwarzenegger or anything even resembling that?

Your quoted post above is either meant for someone else, or if it is directed toward me, you must be reading a post of mine that I can't remember writing or find anywhere in this thread- or you just interpret my posts with a style I will from now on refer to as "CLANCIEISM".

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Silicon
I would consider grabbing a stranger's breast (assault) worse than consentual sex. Yes.

That's not what I asked.

[subgenius]

On a somewhat related note. They are attributing the stress of the campaign to Maria's obvious ill health. I have noted in other threads that she appears to be seriously ill. She looks worse than ever.
I hope she will be OK.

[michaellee]

Originally posted by Clancie
But I also don't like the recall, because Davis was elected a year ago and I think it sets a very bad presedent. It was intended for extreme cases--like criminality--and there's no evidence of anything like the law intended.

Where did you come up with this belief? Criminality? Do you know the laws intention?

The recall law was drafted with the purpose of removing "recalcitrant" politicians.

RECALCITRANT

Marked by stubborn resistance to and defiance of authority or guidance.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

My view is that Gray Davis fits this description perfectly. He resisted and defied the will of the people of California (for the benefit of most who happen to read this: the people are the authority and provide the guidance for the elected; the Governor SERVES)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by michaellee
What is this "long list"???


This one:

Originally posted by michaellee
But "credible charges of harrassment" DO NOT include those made against Clinton, under oath before a Grand Jury, by:

Paula Jones, whom Clinton settled with for $800,000
Kathleen Willey, volunteer worker for the White House
Juanita Broaddrick, nursing home operator
A long list of many others but you don't care because they are not credible- they don't act for a living or perform dangerous stunts.

Let's see the list. Then watch Clancie explain it away.

[CFLarsen]

michaelee,

Got it:

Clinton Misogyny - Sex
Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scanned

Clinton Misogyny - Other
Linda Tripp - coerce, intimidate, deny - Bob Bennett calls her a liar, release her job application, transfer her.
Julia Hiatt-Steele - Willey's friend and neighbor - used the machine to change her story.
Hillary Rodham Clinton - used as a cover humiliated
Chelsea Clinton - ignored
Betty Currie - used as cover and enabler
Donna Shalala - used as cover, used as whipping post in Cabinet meeting
Madeline Albright - used as cover
Secret Service - female agent complaints
Kathy Ferguson – unwelcome advances

Clinton as a Ladies' Man?
Marsha Scott - claimed an affair
Connie Hamzy - claimed sex
Bobbie Ann Williams - claimed paid sex, paternity

Following are names of ladies rumored to have had sexual relations with Bill Clinton. We of course do not have information to support these rumors and do not intend the reader to think that we believe any of them to be true. Some could be true, some could be false and some could be intentionally spread rumors so absurd as to make the ones listed above and all other rumors look absurd as well. As always, please draw your own conclusions:

Clinton as a Ladies' Man - Rumors
Marilyn Jo Jenkins - rumored
Susan Coleman - rumored (suicide 7.5 months pregnant)
Robyn Dickey -rumored, staffer
Lenora Steinkamp - rumored - mystery jogger on video tape entering the "infamous hallway" with Clinton
Kimba Wood - rumored, judge
Kelley Craighead - rumored, staffer to Bill and Hillary
Sharline Wilson - rumored, claimed drug association
Dee Dee Myers - rumored, staffer
Suzie Whitacre - rumored
Catherine Cornelius - rumored, "distant cousin".
Cheryl Mills - rumored, WH attorney
Current Secret Paramour (per Tripp/King interview) - rumored

Clinton as a Ladies' Man - Rumors with quid pro quo?
Beth Gladden Coulson - rumored - young judicial appointment
Eleanor Mondale - rumored - celebrity daughter, dated Ron Perelman (see Jordan)
Shelia Lawrence - rumored - Widow of Ambassador
Deborah Mathis - rumored - reporter/WH advancements
Debra Schiff - rumored - ex flight attendant, now staffer
Susan McDougal - rumored - business connections
Benazir Bhutto - rumored - current opposition leader in, and former prime minister of Pakistan

Clinton as a wanna be Ladies' Man or intended disinformation? - Rumors High Profile
Barbara Streisand - rumored - celebrity
Markie Post - rumored - actress
Sharon Stone - rumored - actress
Lencola Sullivan - rumored - beauty queen
Martha Stewart - rumored - celebrity
Diana Wiley Pietsch - rumored - sex therapist - Oxford.
Princess Di - rumored - royalty, deceased

NewsMax 12/29/00 Carl Limbacher ".....Before her death, Princess Diana claimed privately that a "very flirtatious" Bill Clinton made a pass at her during one of several meetings; and that she considered accepting -- according to close friends who recently shared Diana's confidences with noted royal author Judy Wade. Wade conducted "scores" of interviews with confidantes to the late Princess of Wales for her soon-to-be released biography, "Diana: The Truth," which is excerpted in next week's National Enquirer. After one Clinton encounter Diana reportedly said, "We were a little naughty with each other," according to one confidante who talked to the tabloid directly. ......"

Source: http://www.alamo-girl.com/0262.htm (there's more)

Not only accusations of consentual sex, but also accusations of "unwelcomed sexual advance"s. And the list is actually more damning, since we have the names of the women accusing Clinton of it. With Arnold S., we have only rumors of the women.

Watch Clancie duck.

(You might want to repost this, since Clancie pretends to ignore me.)

[Silicon]

Originally posted by SRW
But before I would convict someone I sure would want to have all the facts.


Absolutely.

That's why I'm merely speaking in the abstract. I don't know what actually happened. But purely on a moral level of what the accusations are, I find these to be more "serious" accusations.


For example, if Schwarzenegger was accused of two different things. On the one-hand, walking up to women and grabbing at them, or on the other hand cheating on Maria, I'd have to say that the first charge would be "serious" and possibly criminal, and the kind of thing that has you registered as a sex-offender, and the second would merely be "a private matter".

[michaellee]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Let's see the list. Then watch Clancie explain it away.


Added some details......

All material compiled and copyrighted by Capitol Hill Blue, Capitol Web Publishing 1999.


"...a campaign worker in 1978, a legal secretary who worked for one of his ardent supporters that same year, a Democratic fundraiser in Washington, a volunteer in the White House. Bill Clinton was so busy assaulting his own supporters that he never had time to get around to his enemies." (Capitol Hill Blue, 2/22/99)

Eileen Wellstone, 19-year-old English woman who said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where the future President was a student in 1969. A retired State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed it was consensual. The victim's family declined to pursue the case;

In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident. The woman, tracked down by Capitol Hill Blue last week, confirmed the incident, but declined to discuss it further and would not give permission to use her name;

In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. She complained to her faculty advisor who confronted Clinton, but Clinton claimed the student ''came on'' to him. The student left the school shortly after the incident. Reached at her home in Texas, the former student confirmed the incident, but declined to go on the record with her account. Several former students at the University have confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students;

From 1978-1980, during Clinton's first term as governor of Arkansas, state troopers assigned to protect the governor were aware of at least seven complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force, himself on them sexually. One retired state trooper said in an interview that the common joke among those assigned to protect Clinton was "who's next?". One former state trooper said other troopers would often escort women to the governor's hotel room after political events, often more than one an evening;

Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met then-governor Clinton at a political fundraiser and shortly thereafter received an invitation to meet the governor in his hotel room. "I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn't even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room."

Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown. Last year, Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen (from her first marriage), told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. Close friends of Ward, however, say she still maintains privately that Clinton forced himself on her.

Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, DC, political fundraiser says Presidential candidate-to-be Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation's capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was all right, at which point Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she wanted to keep working. Miss James has since married and left Washington. Reached at her home last week, the former Miss James said she later learned that other women suffered the same fate at Clinton's hands when he was in Washington during his Presidential run.

Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton's leased campaign plane in 1992, says Presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself to her, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. A video shot on board the plane by ABC News shows an obviously inebriated Clinton with his hand between another young flight attendant's legs. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.



Obviously, these women all misunderstood what was really going on; or are lying, money hungry bimbos with stories provided to them by that vast right-wing conspiracy group out to get Clinton.

[Silicon]

Actually, we have names of some of the women in Arnold's case now.


And larsen, way to pad that list with CHELSEA CLINTON!!??!?!? MADELINE ALBRIGHT!??!?

WTF?!?!?!


Can I list Maria Shriver and Sharon Stone (co-star, COVER!), and Arianna Huffington (SHOT DIRTY LOOKS AT!)?


Now the S. list is at 15 women. And these are stories that were printed (premiere magazine) years before he declared his run for office. It's something Arnold is known for in the business.



I say we elect Larry Flint and at least be honest about it!

[SRW]

Originally posted by michaellee


Obviously, these women all misunderstood what was really going on; or are lying, money hungry bimbos with stories provided to them by that vast right-wing conspiracy group out to get Clinton.

Of course if these has all been reported in the LA Times October 3 1992 then it would all be called Republican dirty tricks.

[patnray]

My view is that Gray Davis fits this description perfectly. He resisted and defied the will of the people of California (for the benefit of most who happen to read this: the people are the authority and provide the guidance for the elected; the Governor SERVES)

But he fit that description last November when he was reelected by a majority of the voters. The 2003 budget crisis was set up when the 2002 budget crisis was "resolved" by delaying the hard decisions until 2003. There was nothing secret about this. The govenor and legislature were widely criticised for this at the time. It is one of the reasons I did not vote for Davis last fall. But despite his abyssmal performance in his first term, he was reelected (although it was mostly because the Republicans fielded a candidate even more repugnant to the voters).

Now 10% of the voters can force a recall with an absurdly short campaign period in which the incumbent party cannot (for tactical reasons) field a strong candidate. And a new govenor can be elected by a minority of the voters.

Absent charges that Davis acted illegally or violated his oath of office, I am voting against the recall. It is a very bad precident which may very well come back to haunt the recall supporters in the near future.

Who does a minority govenor serve: the minority that elected him or the majority that voted against him? If he persues policies favored by the minority, is that not, by your own logic, sufficient cause to recall him?

[SRW]

Originally posted by patnray


But he fit that description last November when he was reelected by a majority of the voters. The 2003 budget crisis was set up when the 2002 budget crisis was "resolved" by delaying the hard decisions until 2003. There was nothing secret about this. The govenor and legislature were widely criticised for this at the time. It is one of the reasons I did not vote for Davis last fall. But despite his abyssmal performance in his forst term, he was reelected (although it was mostly because the Republicans fielded a candidate even more repugnant to the voters).

Now 10% of the voters can force a recall with an absurdly short campaign period in which the incumbent party cannot (for tactical reasons) field a strong candidate. And a new Governor can be elected by a minority of the voters.



Not quite Davis insisted that the Budget deficit was going to be 8 billion prior to the election. (down from a 20 billion surplus) After the election it went to 20 billion, and not until January did he admit it was 34 billion.

So if davis knew the extent of the problem prior to the election then he deceived the voters, if he did not know prior to the election then he is an incompetent boob. Enough to recall him in my opinion, especially when you add in everything else he had done or failed to do.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Silicon
Actually, we have names of some of the women in Arnold's case now.

BEEP! Moving the goalposts. When Clancie was making her point, we did not know the names.

Originally posted by Silicon
And larsen, way to pad that list with CHELSEA CLINTON!!??!?!? MADELINE ALBRIGHT!??!?

WTF?!?!?!

As a skeptic, I am looking at all the evidence! ;)

Originally posted by Silicon
Can I list Maria Shriver and Sharon Stone (co-star, COVER!), and Arianna Huffington (SHOT DIRTY LOOKS AT!)?

Huffington probably claimed that Clinton shot dirty looks at her in a previous life! ;)

Originally posted by Silicon
Now the S. list is at 15 women. And these are stories that were printed (premiere magazine) years before he declared his run for office. It's something Arnold is known for in the business.

Really? Premiere Magazine does not even have a website anymore, and these stories came up just before the election. Surely these women would have come forward, maybe even seeking financial compensation, before?

Originally posted by Silicon
I say we elect Larry Flint and at least be honest about it!

Now, that's a suggestion! :D

[michaellee]

But he fit that description last November when he was reelected by a majority of the voters....

And a new govenor can be elected by a minority of the voters.


In the 2002 election, Davis received:

* Gray Davis Dem 3,142,620 47.4

Does 47.4% represent a majority of the voters?

If yes, then how does one get elected with a minority of the voters?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by michaellee


If yes, then how does one get elected with a minority of the voters?


Electoral college?

;)

[Silicon]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


BEEP! Moving the goalposts. When Clancie was making her point, we did not know the names.




BEEP! Wrong. When you said:

And the list is actually more damning, since we have the names of the women accusing Clinton of it. With Arnold S., we have only rumors of the women.


.. we DID know names. When the Times article was published, there were 2 names of the 6, E. Laine Stockton and Anna Richardson.

Actually, we've known one name since 1990, if we read Premiere Magazine:A nna Richardson.

Now there's at least a third name, Colette Brooks:

"That incensed me," said Colette Brooks, who claims Schwarzenegger grabbed her
buttocks when she was a 23-year-old intern at CNN in the early 1980s. "He's
dodging any sort of culpability. He's dodging these allegations."

[CFLarsen]

Silicon,

Correct. Now, what is the difference between AS's behavior and Clinton's?

[subgenius]

Arnold Schwarzenegger: Well, first of all, a lot of these are made up stories. I have never grabbed anyone, and pulled up their shirt and grabbed their breasts and stuff like that. This is not me. So there’s a lot of this stuff going on that is not true.
Tom Brokaw: So you deny all those stories about grabbing.
Arnold Schwarzenegger: Not at all. I’m just saying this is not— this is not me. What I am is I’m, you know, someone that sometimes makes outrageous jokes, someone that is out there saying sometimes crazy things that may be offensive because there is a certain atmosphere on the set and all those things.
But you know, I’m known on the set and anyone can tell you that I’m known on the set as being the guy that really creates a great spirit on the set for everyone to work hard together and bring the team together and be a team player
The interesting thing is that those people who speak out on my behalf are not heard in the newspaper. Why is that? And why is it that they call and—

http://www.msnbc.com/news/976299.asp?vts=100620031359

Huh?

[subgenius]

He complains about not being given a chance to respond then he says he'll respond after the campaign is over: this guy is a slimeball.

"Tom Brokaw: You’re not going to be anymore specific about these charges in terms of your denials.
Arnold Schwarzenegger: As soon as the campaign is over I will— I can get into all of the specifics and find out what is really going on. But right now I’m just really occupied with the campaign."
http://www.msnbc.com/news/976299.asp?vts=100620031359

Yeah, not like the voters have a right to know beforehand.

[CFLarsen]

subgenius,

Actually, it sounds (ridiculous, I know!) as if AS tries to get the campaign back on track - on politics - instead of smear campaigns.

I know, I know....AS is not a politician. But he does have a point: Why focus on anything else but how California is going to get out of the financial mess?

I don't hear a lot of that. In fact, I hear nothing of that.

No, I don't think for a second that AS is the right candidate. I don't consider him in the least way capable of handling complex political matters. But I do find it interesting that his critics tries to point to his behavior, instead of his - admittedly - fundamental lack of political knowledge.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Silicon,

Correct. Now, what is the difference between AS's behavior and Clinton's?


That I don't know.

I'm not saying Arnold did any of the things he's being accused of.

Likewise I don't know how many of the things Clinton was accused of are true. The things I know are true are troubling (Lewinsky), but not as troubling as the unproven ones. I thought the Clinton scandal would have been a devistating blow (no pun) to feminism in the Democratic party. But instead of reaching out to feminists, Republicans took that opportunity to merely chuckle and make cigar jokes, and say "We told you so, honey, now get back in the kitchen!" The truth is, the Republican platform doesn't support sexual equality as an ideal. It's a shame. A strong case could be made for a feminist republican plank. It's good for business, good for jobs, good for economic growth, and good for the individual. But alas, as long as Rush Limbaugh was the voice of the Right, it was Cigar jokes a plenty.


QUICK - Think, during the Lewinsky scandal, who was the strong, independant Republican woman leader who spoke with the outrage of the nation's women, and the failing of the Democratic party to live up to the ideals of Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan?

No, I can't think of any either.

As far as Arnold, I don't have any facts. These allegations aren't the reason I'm not voting for him.

I'm not voting for him because to me he has failed to articulate any solution to the problems facing Calfornia. He has yet to attack the unfunded mandates caused by the initiative process. He hasn't accused the California voters of approving feel-good bond measure after bond measure. He has failed to talk about what specifically he would cut from the budget, except to say he'd root out corruption and somehow convince the soverign indian tribes to pay taxes.

Getting gambling to pay for our budget woes sounds a lot like Larry Flynt's platform.

Arnold's selling a painless balancing of the budget, made without raising taxes and without cutting programs. Like I said before, I think McClintock was the best man to fix this, even though I find his social views abhorrant.

[DavidJames]

"But I do find it interesting that his critics tries to point to his behavior, instead of his - admittedly - fundamental lack of political knowledge."

Sadly, because it's a tactic that works and one people understand. Too many people don't have the attention span and the knowledge to listen, understand and sift through the BS of a real plan. It's all about driving up the negatives of the opposition. Trying to maintain the position as the best of the worst has become part of a winning strategy. Being a famous celebrity like AS gives you leg up.

[Silicon]

Well, I think that what's been going on is that Arnold has pushed aside debates on the issues, and ran a campaign based on his personality vs. Gray Davis's personality.

They attacked him on the issues, (pro 134? Buffet telling him to raise taxes? ) and he ran away from debates. Nobody seems to care that McClintock was the one best versed in the issues.

So now they're attacking that personality. Sad to see.

He won't win or lose on the issues. He'll (probably) win because of his personality. So they're trying to make him lose because of his personality.


Like I said, he's proposing a feel-good, no pain recovery. Good luck.

I think the same feel-good initiative bond-measures that helped get us into budget troubles will be the same feeling that drives Schwarzenegger into power. He's the candy man, he'll balance the budget without cutting schools, raising taxes or hurting anybody.

[crackmonkey]

My head is still spinning from Clancie's labored, contorted rationalizations as to why Clinton's alleged sexual battery and rape are somehow excusable while AS's alleged sexual battery (if indeed that's what it could be considered to be) was not.
Regardless, I haven't heard anyone yet address Gray Davis's physical battery of anyone within arms' reach when he is in tantrum mode...

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~24781~1676763,00.html

[Rosencrantz]

I'm just sick of getting five calls a day urging me to "closely examine Prop. 54" and vote for Bustamante. I have an unlisted number and I don't belong to any political party; why do they keep calling me? Even if I agreed with them on the issues, it makes me want to vote against them out of spite! :(

[SRW]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I haven't heard anyone yet address Gray Davis's physical battery of anyone within arms' reach when he is in tantrum mode...

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~24781~1676763,00.html

Come on Crackmonkey how could that be news? Davis is a democrat, it would just be unethical to print anything bad about him of a personal nature. :roll:

[Silicon]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
My head is still spinning from Clancie's labored, contorted rationalizations as to why Clinton's alleged sexual battery and rape are somehow excusable while AS's alleged sexual battery (if indeed that's what it could be considered to be) was not.
Regardless, I haven't heard anyone yet address Gray Davis's physical battery of anyone within arms' reach when he is in tantrum mode...

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~24781~1676763,00.html


I respect Jill Stewart, who wrote the article above. She's right wing, but she does her homework, and she knows her stuff very very well.

I think she pointed out a severe boo-boo at the Times.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Rosencrantz
I'm just sick of getting five calls a day urging me to "closely examine Prop. 54" and vote for Bustamante. I have an unlisted number and I don't belong to any political party; why do they keep calling me? Even if I agreed with them on the issues, it makes me want to vote against them out of spite! :(


I get those call from my union, they say they are taking a poll, but spend all the time explaining why I should vote against this or that. When they ask me what my votes will be I tell them its none of their business.

To which they answer may I make a suggestion? I say yes you may then immediately hang up.

[Clancie]

Well, I've looked through "The Clinton List". I've never seen all these added claims against him before and therefore have no idea how credible the sources are (or if there's any reputable reporting behind it--not just mostly NewsMax). If they're true, I'm not sure why Ken Starr didn't file criminal charges, since those are exactly the kinds of things he was looking for. Criminal charges -should- be filed if he found truth to these allegations.

But let's say they're all true, everyone of them. In that case, Clinton's would be a sleaze. Prosecutors should be looking into whether or not he committed any misdemeanors or felony assaults that could be prosecuted. In fact, if all those things are true, I'm puzzled why they haven't done so. Clinton has been nothing if not thoroughly investigated.

But Clinton's not running for governor here, is he? So the question still remains...."Why are people so willing to ignore these charges (some of which he -has- admitted to)?"

...If you want to claim that he's "innocent until proven guilty", well, its too late to do that because he's already said some of the allegations are true (he just won't specify which ones).

...If you want to say the women lack credibility as anonymous sources, too late for that, too. As of yesterday 10 of the 15 women (as I mentioned before) have gone public with their names and experiences.

...If you want to say, "Even if its -all- true, it just doesn't matter. He's running for governor--what difference would a bit of aggressive groping, even assault, make to that?"

Well, since he has no political experience of any sort, Schwarzenegger's main "qualification" has been his professed leadership ability and his character. To some people (obviously not to all) doing some (if not all) of these actions--and his unwillingness to address the charges candidly--reflect significantly on his character.

....So, if it isn't "character", then..."why Schwarzenegger?" What plans and policies has he presented to the voters? Nothing that I can see except a very shallow attack on the California Indians--hardly something that promises to solve California's economic crisis. Here's one Republican's "take" on that bit of Arnold's "election strategy" (from the Sacramento Bee...).

...Not all Republicans nodded in agreement when Schwarzenegger characterized Indian tribes as "big, powerful special interests" from which he would not accept campaign contributions.

Bill Leonard, a longtime GOP lawmaker elected last year to the state Board of Equalization, said Schwarzenegger "crossed the line in making California Indians the scapegoat for all that is wrong with California."

Writing in his weekly electronic newsletter, Leonard said Indian reservations are "islands of freedom where tribal entrepreneurs can invest in their own local economy, producing jobs and success. We would all be better off if other Californians had these same economic freedoms."

Leonard said Indian tribes would be "way down on the list" of special interests, noting that voters twice approved statewide measures authorizing tribal casino operations. "I would love to see a statewide vote on the agendas of the trial lawyers, the state employee union leaders, the corporations asking for regulations that benefit only them, or the radical environmentalists."

Schwarzenegger's attack on the Indians of California (http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/7549161p-8490622c.html)
I don't see where he's shown exceptional "character"...or much in the way of specific proposals to deal with the $38 billion deficit...and he has absolutely no governing experience. But he does have name recognition and charisma and I'm sure that he will win tomorrow.

Oh well. Maybe subgenius's NYT article will prove right and the consequences of having "Governor Schwarzenegger" will be that Bush loses California in the general election when he might have won it with Davis as governor. Every cloud has a silver lining....

[nightwind]

Good grief, what is all the fuss about groping. Exactly what is that? Pinching on the butt or feeling a breast?

These are evidently adult women, who never said a word until all of a sudden they do the poor me, I was groped, don't vote for Arnold. I don't buy it a bit.

If these women were so traumatized, then they should have said something at the time. I don't believe any of them were injured in any way, and the whole thing is nothing but hogwash.

I believe some women have just learned that they can use sexual harrassment or "groping" (whatever that is) to manipulate, gain attention, sympathy, etc.

And I bet if we watch, some of them will be found out to be nothing more than "false accusers" looking for attention, before it is all over. And if some of it is outright lies, which they may be, then Arnold should sue them.

I have never seen such dirty tricks used in a campaign before.

Groping, sheesh. Give me a break.

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

This is incredible:

You point to AS' admitted "guilt" in some of the cases. You ignore that Clinton also has admitted guilt in some of his cases.

You think it is more serious that AS is running for governor, than Clinton being POTUS at the time, the most powerful position in the world.

You point to anonymous sources, yet ignore that Clinton has a LOT more than just 10-15.

You point to AS' unwillingness to admit faults, yet ignore Clinton's lies.

Keep struggling, Clancie. This is rich.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Clancie

But Clinton's not running for governor here, is he? So the question still remains...."Why are people so willing to ignore these charges (some of which he -has- admitted to)?"


For one, we are not stupid enough to believe that these poor victimized women were silently anguishing away in pain all of these years and then decide to avenge themselves 3 days before an election.

You do realize you are comparing an actor's behavior years before he even thought of running for office to someone who was a career politician and did his dirty deeds after being elected into the trust of US citizens.

As to the story of Arnold supporting Nazi ideals, that is just too stupid to even justify a response.

[michaellee]

Originally posted by Clancie

Maybe subgenius's NYT article will prove right and the consequences of having "Governor Schwarzenegger" will be that Bush loses California in the general election when he might have won it with Davis as governor.


QUIZ QUIZ QUIZ QUIZ

Multiple Choice Question- The day Bush wins the state of California in the general election is the same day in which:

A. A Budweiser promotion called "La Celebracion de sin documentar El inmigrante con La Licencia del conductor" (The celebration of undocumented immigrants with driver's license)
goes haywire after the company mistakenly gives out one case of Bud instead of one bottle to each qualified recipient who registers to vote. A record 99% of the Male California Latino population registers, but are so fuc...ed up after drinking a case of beer each, that the new electronic ballot confuses them, and they all cast a vote for "Bush", thinking they were at the local cantina/brothel.

B. All registered Democrats flee the state just hours before the voting booths open, because they heard Bill Clinton was touring the neighboring state of Nevada, promoting and signing his new book titled "Is is; is is not; is is if i say it is; is it not?"
Clinton sets the one day New York Times sales record for a book in the finger painting/porno category.

C. Ronald Reagan is nominated as the Democratic candidate.

D. A statewide plague kills every California resident except 117 year old Betsy McCarthy Reagan, who somehow manages to figure out the new ballot and votes for Bush.

[rikzilla]

The story of Arnold's alleged crimes against women is the tip of a dirty political mud-burg called "The Politics of Personal Destruction"

Instead of the hard work of coming up with a better idea, politicians have discovered that it's simply easier to cast aspertions upon their opponents.

Both parties are guilty of this tactic, and it needs to stop.

Now for those who missed the Sullivan story, it starts with Sullivan himself, "gay conservative" being just the start of his contradictions as writer, a moralist against gay promiscuity and anti-abortion to boot. So it was with great glee that a few of his ideological opponents in the gay movement tracked his use of an Internet site where gay men sought out one another for unprotected sex. His opponents passed the information onto the broader media and a minor media firestorm ensued.

A shocking newsworthy story? Maybe, although Sullivan is HIV positive and sought out only other AIDS-infected partners, so despite the salacious story that the media picked up on, it was actually unclear what was being exposed other than prurience at gay sex terms like "barebacking," the term for non-safe sex used on the Internet site. Yes, it's fun to find that moralists of all sexual orientations actually like sex, but it's less fun to find out progressive civil libertarians like to invade people's most intimate personal privacy when it serves their political purposes.

Sullivan labeled the media attack "sexual McCarthyism"

Here's the
LINK (http://www.nathannewman.org/archives/000059.shtml) This essay is from 2001, but it's as true now as it was then. It's shameful.

-z

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Both parties are guilty of this tactic, and it needs to stop.

This should apply to people, too. I am frankly a bit tired of seeing people trying to get elected being smeared for their sexual behavior (in this case, only old maids and spinsters could be offended by such a vague term as "groping"). If you want to criticize them, criticize their political agenda.

The proponents of these "Politics of Smears" are a danger to democracy. They want to decide not by vote, but by who shares their own prudish morals.

Comstockery when it's worst.

[Julia]

I believe that it is difficult for many people to compartmentalize a person when it comes to their public and private life. It is almost as though if a public figure does something that the public views as immoral, they take it personally. I just believe that a person job, and their life outside the job, can and should be seperate.

Back when Woody Allen was exposed for having sex with his step-daughter, I know some women who boycotted his films. What he did may be repellent to me, but it makes him no less of a great writer, producer, and comedian.

If A.S. happened to be qualified and had experience to back it up, I don't care about his sexual habits and his past. However, I believe he makes as good of a politician as he does an actor.

[kittynh]

didn't read throught the thread, but didn't a lot of this happen awhile ago? How about stuff that has happened in the last few years directly? Plus, a lot of people are very anti his being elected. Liberals lie too. I'm thinking if this had been SO out of line, why hadn't it surfaced before? He's news now, but he was news before. Just now this news can hurt him. don't dig up my wild past, but that's gone gone gone...I'm thinking that if this is the best reason you can come up with for NOT voting for Arnold, and that his inexperience and lack of a quality plan to deal with the crap that is now California wasn't holding you back, well just go for it. Seriously, you need this information to keep you from voting for him? Then, you are dumb enough to vote for him!