Standing by your man: Maria (good); Hillary (bad)?

If Clinton was proven to have sexually molested/ harassed someone, yes, I think he should have been removed from office.

If Clinton was proven to have sexually molested/ harassed someone, yes, I would have to prefer Bush. Would hate every minute of it. Would be furious with Clinton for ******* up. (As I already am.) But yeah, I really do think that sexual harassment/ molestation, especially a pattern, if proven is serious. And as BBB says, not about sex per se.

Sexual indiscretions -- infedelity -- I don't like, but don't see as being as serious.

Interesting, since sexual harassment is not possible to prove this poses a dillema.

Am I to understand that you also think Arnold's alleged sexual harassment should be PROVEN before it is used in politically motivated attacks? Because if Clinton is afforded this luxury while Arnold isn't it'd be indicative of the duplicity I referenced. And since the duplicity occured in an accusaion of duplicity I found it doubly duplicitous.

And what do you mean it's not possible to prove? A lot of this stuff seems to have taken place in front of witnesses and even on camera.

Sexual harassment is often not possible to prove. I know this from extensive and unsuccessful efforts to help people prove their allegations of sexual harassment.

That is what I meant by the statement.

How it related to THIS thread is:

I was not asking about your regrets, I was asking of you think allegations against Arnold should not have to pass the same criteria as what you demand for the allegations against Clinton.

Again:

The very first comment in this thread accused Republicans of being hypocrites.

The accusation was based on unproven allegations against Arnold and unproven allegations against Clinton.

I argued that there is duplicity for indicting Arnold for his alleged sexual harassment and supporting Clinton through his.

Both are unproven. The politically motivated attacks on Clinton were decried by the same people making politically motivated attacks on Arnold.

This thread went on to try to call Republicans hypocrites.

I believe that appelation deserves widespread use. I believe you are quite hypocritical to defend the attacks on Arnold and not the attacks on Clinton.

I've had a pretty narrow focus throughout this thread.

Not about whether Republicans are hypocrites.

Not about whether Democrats are hypocrites.

About whether there is a difference between sexual molestation and willing partner(s). McTag made that comment. I agreed. We went from there.

I HAVE BEEN DECRYING POLITICAL MUCKRAKING THROUGHOUT. That is not hypocritical.

I do not defend the attacks on Arnold. I do not support the attacks on Arnold. I have been saying that sexual molestation/ harassment and consensual sex are very different things. And that I don't think a (valid) complaint about Americans being too concerned with the sex lives of their politicians extends to when those politicians engage in criminal molestation/harassment. That criminal molestation/ harassment is separate from their sex lives. That criminal molestation/ harassment is not, at its core, about sex.

And I gotta go.

My edit. :wink:
Take one:
Look, I don't care about a public person's private life because it is private, and unless someone can show that a private behavior is affecting that person's public duties then the hell with it. Okay? I like Rudy. I think he is a jerk sometimes, I think he was a jerk in the way he treated his wife, but on the whole he did a good job for New York. Luckily for us, when his affair became public knowledge he didn't quit out of some twisted sense of higher morality that is claimed by many of his party.
Take two:
Look, I don't care about a public person's private life because it is private, and unless someone can show that a private behavior is affecting that person's public duties then the hell with it. Okay? I like Bill. I think he is a jerk sometimes, I think he was a jerk in the way he treated his wife, but on the whole he did a good job for the USA. Luckily for us, when his affair became public knowledge he didn't quit out of some twisted sense of higher morality that is claimed by many of the opposition party.

BBB has asked an interesting question not as yet answered, but I would say that certain members of the political class have their moral outrage switch set to convenient and that nothing a member of the opposition does will merit any praise. I see both women, and the former Mrs. Giuliani, as thinking persons who have made a judgement about the men they love. That's all.

Fair enough, this is how it went for me:

1) Claim is made that Republicans are hypocrites unless they call for Maria to leave Arnold

2) I claim that if Democrats decried the politically motivated attacks on Clinton and then both engage in politically motivated attacks against Arnold and call Republicants hypocrites there is duplicity.

3) The differentiation between Arnold's allegations and Clinton's is proposed under the notion that Clinton's acts were consensual.

4) I note that Clinton's acts were not consensual.

5) The focus and import continues to remain on how consensual Clinton's act was (conveniently ignoring teh non-consensual acts).

6) I finally get you to acknowledge that I am speaking of Clinton's non-consensual acts

7) You note that they are unproven and that you do not believe them.

8) I note that Arnold's acts are not proven either.

Now I am heartened that you do not support the politically motivated attacks on Arnold.

When you get back:

Do you consider it hypocritical to call for Maria to leave Arnold over unproven allegations while saying Hillary was right to stick with Clinton when some of his alleged acts were proven?

Personally, I think people should stay out of their marital affairs and I suspect you agree, but I want to know what you think about the claim that Republicans are hypocritical, that is the only thing I have discussed. The quibbling about the difference between Monica and unwanted advances were a red herring. Monica was just one facet of the allegations against Clinton, his unwanted advances were the other side of the story.

I was not discussing the red herring, but rather the whole picture as it relates to accusations that Republicans are hypocritical.

Couple of quotes from Craven:
Yeah, payback is hell. and there's more to come. Regretable, yes, but this is, in the words of a certain gambling addict and writer on morals, a war of cultures.

And you're probably right, although BBB's point was about the attacks on the wives of the politicians, a point you seem to keep zipping past. No pun intended.
And here's what else.
I hope the Liberals get really angry and engage in the worst kind of back alley, low life, sleazebag tactics instead of trying to be fair minded. The hell with fairness, bring on the rumor mills and the PI's, bring on the ax wielding writers and their unnamed sources, bring on the whisperers. Liberals need to start fighting tooth and nail against their opposition, they need to get loud and in the face of every self-righteous, moralistic, sneering protector of the powerful and pull them down. That's what worked for the neo-cons so far and that's what will stop them in their tracks. And if in the middle of the battle we commit a little duplicity, so what? We're on the neo-cons level now.

More:

No. When the Paula Jones case came out it was another of a long string of accusations the conservatives had launched against Clinton including drug dealing, murder and theft. It was just another chunk of mud.



I would compare both men's political ideals and reflect on their personal faults. My vote would still be with Clinton.

Joe

This is all from personal experience.
When someone put their hand on me without my consent, that's where I draw the line. It hasn't happened in a long, long time but back in the day, when a man said something lewd to me, say, in a club, out in the street, in passing or wherever, I was free to walk away and did that, right away. I may have been mad as hell about it and once or twice I actually confronted the punk and asked him to repeat what he had said but walking away was usually the best thing to do. Walk away and try to forget about it. That's the kind of day to day crap that many, many women have to put up with. Every day.
But when a guy actually touched me, felt that he had the right to put his hands on me, that's when the line was crossed. I remember scratching a guy in the face many years ago for doing just that. How dare you?
Anyone who does not respect that simple, basic right, one human being to another, does not score very high in my book. And will not/can not fairly and justly serve in any office.
It's really that simple for me.

So many threads here - all sort of getting confused, I think.

Wot I think:

1. If there are Republicans who condemned Hillary Clinton for sticking by Bill, and who are now praising Maria Shriver for sticking by Arnie - they are being hypocritical.

2. If there are Democrats who defended Bill, and are now condemning Arnie, they are being hypocritical.

3. If there are Republicans who condemned Bill and are now supporting Arnie, they are being hypocritical.

4. If there are Democrats who praised Hillary for standing by Bill, and are criticising Maria for standing by Arnie, they are being hypocritical too.

5. I believe that sexual harassment is a serious offence. Sexual assault is even more so. Both have happened to me. I would never try to justify either. Some of what Arnie is being accused of is both. I am not so sure re what Bill was accused of - sexual harassment was the worst, I thought, but I have no idea.

6. Arguing that there is hypocrisy happening is not the same as arguing that the misconduct both men are accused of is trivial

7. Arguing that such allegations ought not to have been raised against Bill, but that Arnie is fair game is hypocritical.

8. Arguing that such allegations ought not to have been raised against Arnie but that Bill was fair game is hypocritical.

9. Offences against neither man have been proven - Arnie has admitted to foolishness of some kind. So did Bill. Raising these things at the times when they were/are being raised is gives them a very murky and difficult flavour, and smacks/smacked of political motivation on both sides. Yes, sexual assault and harassment are very difficult to prove - though they are sometimes successfully prosecuted. Naturally, power comes into decisions about whether people do formally complain about these things. Nonetheless, I say again, that raising these things at the time they were/are being raised smacks of political motivation and reliably raises a furore which detracts from other considerations of a candidate.

I am damned if I know when a politician's personal life reasonably becomes germane to their public life, except in matters of serious criminal misconduct - I have asked a question about this. I DO, however, think that the USA sets the bar way too low...

Joe Nation
Joe - APPLAUSE! APPLAUSE!

BumbleBeeBoogie

I hope your intention was to be offensive.

dlowan
dlowan APPLAUSE!

Since Able2Know was not in existence at the time of the Clinton scandals and impeachment, no one knows how I felt about the whole thing.

To set the record straight: I didn't vote for Clinton, Dole, Gore or Bush.

I deplored Clinton's sexual behavior, his disrespect toward women, especially his wife and daughter.

I was so angry at Clinton for wasting his political capital to do good things for our country because he couldn't control his penis. He truly is a Hamlet-like tragic figure.

I was against the impeachment because I thought Clinton's crimes didn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense. It was a partisan political abuse of the impeachment provisions. I would have felt the same if it had been a Republican accused of the same crimes.

Unfortunately, hypocrisy and money are the "mother's milk" of politics.

BumbleBeeBoogie

I have no time to really respond as I would like to -- sick kiddo. But briefly:

A great deal of emphasis has been placed on the questions I "refused" to answer. (And which I considered answered by implication, but nonetheless went and answered explicitly when requested.) Meanwhile, questions of mine have remained unanswered:

1.) If if we assume that a pattern of actual sexual harassment DID take place, should it be ignored?

2.) Is the issue that you (sofia, Craven) don't believe the allegations, or that it shouldn't matter?

3.) Is this about Arnold's sex life? Groping people in public, as they resist, knowing he could get away with it... is that about his sex life?

4.) Would you care if he raped someone? More specifically, would you think it legitimate that if he did in fact rape someone, that would destroy his career?

I posted the following on Dlowan's new similar topic site, but I'm reposting it here because it is appropriate to continue the discussion.

What is it that makes me anti-Arnold? Its his megalomania compulsions. I wish psychologist Lola would join this discussion and describe the symptoms and how closely Arnold fits them.

I lived all my life in California until I moved to Albuquerque last year. I knew quite a bit about Arnold (and many other politicians) through my professional and political connections. I anticipated the Arnold sexual scandals and many other issues that are only beginning to surface. My main concern about Arnold is not his sexual behavior, it is his power compulsions that worry me.

The sexual battery behavior is criminal in nature. But it demonstrates a far deeper character flaw in Arnold. He exhibits a need to dominate, humiliate, and belittle women and, it also appears, that he abuses some men in the same way from the power position of an employer, a "star", a wealthy and connected man. Arnold showed deep disrespect to his wife, Maria, and their children because he knew these sexual battery stories would come out in the campaign. He didn't care and went ahead regardless of the hurt to his family.

Arnold gave away his need for supreme power in his comments about Hitler. He admired Hitler for his ability to attract crowds of admirers, keep them spellbound with his rhetoric, and to dominate their thinking to his point of view and his goals. The similarity in Arnold's life-long quests is dangerous.

I think Arnold, in a powerful political position, is a dangerous man. Beware of a man with a Messiah Complex. Arnold proclaims that he wants to save California. What he really wants is to be the savior to fill his own personality needs.

---BumbleBeeBoogie

BBB, I must agree with you. When he announced his candidacy, one of my first thoughts were "thank goodness he can't run for president."

Why would we have to excuse Clinton to object to Arnold's behavior? Both are nasty and self serving.

Why not object to the election of Arnold S. because he is NOT leadership material!! ? Citizens should not elect a leader based on money or popularity, but on proven strains of leadership in their life. I have seen NO public evidence that Arnold S. has done anything with his life, but weight lifting, showing off, making violent films, and marrying into the "Kennedy clan". I would not want him for my governor.

BBB, I do see your point quite well.
Within the hysterical walls of political sex scandal--- there is no respect of persons, party or people.

I haven't seen Dlowan's new thread yet. I'll go check it out.

I liked her summary of the discussion so far, and I think it highlights that the main debators are not so far apart. My main qualm is lumping together sexual assault/ harassment with infidelity. I think the latter is properly termed someone's sex life and properly should be kept out of politics, and the former is properly termed criminal behavior. As such, I think it is appropriate to have it be a factor in whether someone attains or keeps political office.

However, I also hope that people who engage in this criminal behavior are never able to get away with it, no how much personal power they wield, and I really wish that if Arnold did all of these things, it would have been addressed and resolved long ago rather than becoming part of the political process now. Similarly, I could go off on a tangent on when women's complaints "matter" -- it was largely ignored (apparently) when it was Arnold, Movie Star, but when political hay could be made of it, look out!