Well, this was the easiest call any one has been tasked with making in years.
Recent Comments
Matt Cavanaugh on 3 Scandals, No Story. NoEmptySuits on 3 Scandals, No Story. NoEmptySuits on 3 Scandals, No Story. conner43 on Simple Answer Propertius on 3 Scandals, No Story. Thank You!
Buy This Movie!
On the radio!
Talk about bad timing, spousal and/or sexual or otherwise: yesterday, Gloria Cain launched “Women for Cain.” Didn’t he tell her anything???
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-cain-women-20111202,0,6423676.story
The debates will be duller. I bet Cain rakes in millions, back to “motivational speaker” gigs.
Unrelated, but as my wife just asked me: “Why is it o.k. for Carlos Mencia to have featured in his HBO promo ‘Obama looks like Curious George,’ when if Seinfeld or Roseanne said this…?”
“Woman for Cain” sounds like “Mars Needs Women.” Has Herm’s wife been pimping for him all this time?
I hate politicians who put their wives through this b.s., exposing them to ridicule. It needs to stop. I love that Huma Abedin never came out in public support of Anthony Weiner; ditto Mark Sanford’s wife.
I agree with your statement, but why the obama, michelle obama, and hate America tags?
Oh! left over from a spasm I had earlier today upon reading that Obi asked congress to keep working thru the holidays while he went off to Hawaii for 17 days.
The call was easy. However I wonder at a society where mere accusation in the media is tantamount to conclusive conviction in court; where one accused of an act of sexual harassment is vilified, but one proven guilty of the same is tolerated (even canonized), where the “watch-dog” media is neither but rather a lap dog for some and attack dogs for others … and no one seems to notice the duplicity. It is amazing.
Fisher, Dem politicians have also been brought down by sex scandals. Gary Hart is a fine example. If the accusations are flimsy to untrue, then the pol can fight them — Cain chose not to fight them, and one may reasonably conclude why that’s the case. If you’re trying to draw a contrast with JFK, that was a different time, when media scrutiny was de minimus. If you’re trying to draw a contrast with Bill C., it’s not a good one because the media did their level best to bring him down — he fought them hard and ultimately won. As I said, Cain could’ve done the same but chose not to.
It’s not legitimate to conflates the standards of a courtroom with those of the public arena. Cain is entitled to a presumption of innocence in a criminal case and cannot be subject to civil liability without a showing that he is liable by a preponderance of the evidence. But, in the court of public opinion one doesn’t have the benefit of those evidentiary privileges, so to speak. It’s apples and oranges. Cain is out there saying, in essence, trust me with the welfare of the public weal, and people may then adjudge whether he is trustworthy. Also, unlike Dem pols, he’s also campaigning on traditional family values, and people legitimately may adjudge how far he falls from the standard he holds others to. The notion that one may campaign on a platform of public morality and family values while personally transgressing against them is pure nonsense, and the hypocrisy may be fairly exposed.
I am quite aware of the court of public opinion, and it is a wonder.
Who was “proven guilty of sexual harassment” then “canonized”?
The canonized comment was editorial, not literal, and it was aimed at Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Clinton’s sexual harassment has been proven and admitted.
Speaking of sex scandals, Newt’s website’s been updated to “explaining past controversies,” and asserting that his objection was not to Clinton’s affair but his perjury. It also deals with the “hospital visit” and who initiated the divorce of his first wife. This Politico summation adds details about the latter scenario left out on the official site: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68728.html
Bill Clinton was never convicted of sexual harassment. Could we cut the innuendo and get to your point?
Never said Mr. Clinton was convicted. I said it was proven and admitted, which it was.
Mr. Cain has not been convicted either. Neither has it been proven or admitted.
Yet one is vivlified, the other is revered. It is a wonder.
The Paula Jones case was never tried — it was settled. So, there was nothing “proved” in court or “admitted.”
The Monica Lewinski affair was not sexual harassment, which the law defines as “unconsented” touching, and the like sexual overtures. Ms. Lewinski was not below the age of consent and she had an affair with Mr. Clinton and was in love with him.
Mr. Clinton faced allegations having to do with affairs during the early primaries when he was running for president. He confronted the matter, said he had caused problems with his marriage, and moved on (and won). Herman Cain either doesn’t have the same intestinal fortitude for the fight (unlikely) or he is lying when he denies the incidents with those two women and the affair with Ms. White.
I know the Right thinks Dems get away with sexual peccadillos where Repubs don’t, but that’s a fallacy: e.g., Anthony Weiner didn’t get away with it; Newt Gingrich did. There are other such examples. Also, because a lot of family-values Repubs run as exemplars of moral virtue, it’s not unreasonable that they should be held to a higher standard (hypocrisy being a great sin, according to Jesus), although it’s not clear that they are.
As for JFK, I doubt you’d find a woman on this planet who would allege sexual harassment by him (i.e., unconsented-to sexual conduct).
NES, can we agree that Mr. Clinton did indeed engage in an inappropraite sexual relationship in the workplace with a subordinate and that he, now on several occasions, has admited to such?
We can agree on some things but not others about the Lewinski affair.
We can agree that it wasn’t advisable for Mr. Clinton to have engaged in this affair. We can also agree that he has admitted to this affair.
But, I don’t agree that this incident constituted sexual harassment, or any other basis for civil liability, in that Ms. Lewinski consented to it and it didn’t create a hostile work environment for other women in the WH. (I have the same take on then Speaker Gingrich’s affair with his then aide (current wife), Calista.)
So we agree that Mr. Clinton did indeed engage in an inappropriate sexual relationship in the workplace with a subordinate and has admitted to such.
I won’t get into the legalities of sexual conduct affecting employment decisions for the participant; or the impact of such an environment on other subordinates disallowed such access, because that is not my concern and was not so in my initial post. We know what he did, he’s admitted it. And yet he is not just given a pass, he’s defended (as evidenced by your participation here). He remains defended by even the most radical feminists in the country. Mr. Cain is not afforded anywhere near the same consideration. It is a wonder.
A couple of irrelevant notes:
1.) “But he was never convicted”; conviction is not the determinant of commission. If a murder is committed, it remains a murder whether or not anyone is convicted.
2.) I know Mr. Clinton never admitted to anything in the Jones case. He settled the case prior to completion by reportedly paying Ms. Jones $850,000. A stiff fine for the innocent.
3.) While failing to be impeached for perjury (the vote fell on party lines, imagine that), he was subsequently found in contempt of court for that same perjury, and lost his license to practice law.
4.) Ms. Allred at the time was shot down by the National Organization of Women for filing a brief opposing the dismissal of the Jones case against Gov. Clinton. It seems that NOW considers sexual improprieties are only improper if they don’t like the guy who committed them. It is a wonder.
“We know what he did, he’s admitted it. And yet he is not just given a pass, he’s defended (as evidenced by your participation here). He remains defended by even the most radical feminists in the country. Mr. Cain is not afforded anywhere near the same consideration. It is a wonder.”
Fisher, he was hardly given a pass. It almost brought down his presidency and the press was mercilessly harsh on him. And, contrary to what you say, he was, in fact, impeached by the house for his alleged perjury. (The fact that he wasn’t removed by the Senate doesn’t mean he wasn’t impeached; he was.). I don’t know why you think he got a pass on it.
As for Mr. Cain, no one’s stopping him from continuing his campaign. The GOP primary voter can still support him — what do they care what the liberal MSM says about him? The fact is that Mr. Cain lost support because he lost credibility by his wholesale, and somewhat incredulous, denials and shifting story-lines. Don’t blame the press for that — blame Cain’s advisers if you’re unwilling to blame him.
As for the amount Paula Jones got paid, you can think what you want. Settlements aren’t admissions of liability; period. Yes, the amount was large, but so also was the threat Paula Jones posed to his ongoing reputation. We weren’t talking about an ordinary defendant here.
And, while you’re getting all lost in wonderment about the alleged double-standard of the press in these matters, consider this: the press isn’t standing in the way of a serial lothario, Gingrich, from possibly winning the WH. There is no difference between what Clinton did with Lewinski and what Gingrich did with Calista — workplace sexual conduct by married men with younger women. If anything, the press isn’t being near as rough on Gingrich as they were on Clinton. You might also wonder about that.
You are correct, I misspoke. He was impeached (tried) for perjury and acquitted, for a crime to which he confessed (was given a pass).
The press handled him with kid gloves, (still are) willingly promoting the dodge that it was about sex, (still are) never promoting the real crime. He committed a crime; the press pictured him as the underdog and vilified anyone saying otherwise, you certainly remember the handling of Mr. Starr by the press. The press has driven many out of office/position for less. Mr. Clinton was given a pass; your defense of him here is evidence.
By the way, YES he was an ordinary defendant. He too is a citizen of the United States, and the law should apply to him in the same manner as it does any other citizen. Instead, he was treated differently, above the law. That too is a crime.
I find it amazing that there are still those that are willing to overlook a confessed crime with an “Oh well” and then in nearly the same breath stone one who has merely been accused. … and then attempt to justify the duplicity. It is a wonder.
Fisher, you really need to move on from the Bill Clinton scandals. Your recollection of his being given “a pass” are simply incorrect. The press was haying for him to resign, as were a number of members in his own party. He clung on despite all that just out of sheer bloodymindedness and because poll after poll showed that the American people didn’t want him to resign. No one approved of what he did, but it wasn’t cause to remove him either. He wouldn’t have won reelection, if that’s any comfort to you.
For the record: Clinton was not impeached after being “tried.” Articles of impeachment were voted against him by a vote in the House of Reps., and, following that, he was tried and acquitted in the Senate.
My pont on the settlement was not that he should have been treated differently, but rather that he had to pay a huge sum of money because he had more to lose by the case continuing. Settlement amounts reflect the value to the defendant of the case going away.
Lastly, no one, least of all I, is “stoning” Cain. Cain needs to stand up and fight these charges if they’re not true. God knows, he has the personal wealth to do it. If he won’t, your quarrel is with him, not Bill Clinton.
Thank you for making my point. The duplicity is a wonder.
I have no quarrel with anyone, Mr. Cain nor Mr. Clinton. I am merely entertained by the gnats and camels alternately strained and swallowed depending over whose plate the strain hovers.
I know this poll was before Cain dropped out but I bet Gingrich benefits most from Cain’s departure.
Agreed.
Is Newt trying to swoon disaffected/Clinton dems? Get a subtle dig in on Obama? One things for sure, the man knows how to rewrite history.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/69708.html
He and Clinton appear to have a mutual admiration society going on at this point in their lives. http://www.mediaite.com/online/bill-clinton-praises-newt-gingrichs-presidential-run-hes-being-rewarded-for-thinking/
Yeah – I think John even posted about that. Maybe Newt was just returning the favor?
Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill had the same kind of adversarial relationship when it came to passing legislation, but they were good friends “after 6 pm”. A lot of political posturing is done for theatrical effect. Perhaps, Clinton and Gingrich have always respected each other.
That’s a stretch for me – that they have always respected each other. I don’t think it was just acting back in the day.
Just curious, who found this lover of 13 years, and why is she talking of the affair now ?
Sounds like someone offered her a better deal, but who ? And women wonder why they are not always taken seriously…….? Gloria Allred has set back women’s issues about 60 years as well, as she, too, keeps unearthing ‘victims’..
sophie, I found this although I’m not sure it will really answer your questions.
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/ginger-white-claims-affair-herman-cain-20111127-es
Is Allred an ambulance chaser? No doubt. Has she really set things back to 1951? Explain.
I’ve been watching the fall out of Cain dropping out. I think his supporters may be taking it harder than Cain himself. I’m not sure he was ever all that serious about the race.
Agreed,.But what started out as a quasi book tour, has sure landed him in a pile of it..
Unintended consequences ?
Looks like the campsite evictions were a good thing for the Occupi, in that it is forcing them to focus on more than defending their territories: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57336223/pushed-out-occupy-movement-plans-next-move/. In particular, the recruiting of candidates for office seems promising.
[excerpt]
In various cities today there were marches on a variety of issues, but the movement plans new tactics. On Tuesday around the nation, it plans to occupy foreclosed homes. In mid-January, a call to pitch tents outside of Congress.
“I want them to say it inside the Capitol,” said Berkeley political science graduate student Josh Green. He also said the next step is to turn the protest movement into a political movement. With his website, Green is hoping to recruit candidates to run for office.
“Until you get an Occupy candidate,” he said, “someone who identifies with the movement out there, you’re not really gonna get those issues talked about.”
Fio that was a good LAT link you posted on the Failure thread (it’s way too overburdened for me to easily load). I think it makes a very valid point about enforcing the rules in order to maintain the neutrality of the message — hadn’t appreciated that point before.
NES (& TL, whom I addressed back at post 486 or something on “Failure”), I import the links for ease of reference, and I add a bonus! The park enforcement is #2; L.A. has a 10:30 p.m. curfew.
1) LA Times’ “manifesto” which “attempts to pair the ideals and impulses that have powered the Occupy movement with some practical changes in public policy worth fighting for.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-manifesto-20111204,0,463446.story
2) LAT editorial for those taking it to the streets, I mean pup tents, again, now or next spring:
“Although the city’s restraint in dealing with the Occupy L.A. protesters is laudable, no one should be allowed to sleep in the park. Enforcing that rule will save the city future grief.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-lapd-20111203,0,7833335.story
3) Voices from Occupy L.A. “On Tuesday, in the hours before Occupy L.A. was ejected from the grounds of City Hall, Margot Roosevelt photographed participants and interviewed them about what had brought them to the protest and what message they hoped people would take away.”
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/12/after-the-occupation-what-theyll-take-away.html
Very interesting, Fio. Thanks.
Incidentally, one thing to watch out for next year is Occupy Chicago’s planned protests of the G-8 and NATO summits to be held in Chicago (I believe in May, or thereabouts). Given the presence of world leaders, military personnel, and other dignitaries at these summits, security in Chicago will be extremely tight and the cops’ patience with the occupi very limited. A potentially volatile situation will be create, no doubt. One is left scratching one’s head as to why Obama expressly invited the location of these two summits in Chicago. Reportedly, Rahm really pushed for them, but cooler heads should’ve prevailed at the WH.
“So we agree that Mr. Clinton did indeed engage in an inappropriate sexual relationship in the workplace with a subordinate and has admitted to such.”
fisherhorne, that’s not anywhere near how you started all this, by claiming that Clinton had committed “sexual harassment”. This is not the first argument you’ve made here which morphs on-the-fly.
A constantly-shifting position might be a debating trick that’s worked for you at cocktail parties, but it’s one that doesn’t translate so well when a written transcript is available for all to see.
Oh he did commit such, but that wasn’t my initial point. I should have worded my initial post differently to make the point and avoid the ubiquitous legal maneuvering. I tried to repair the error and get back to the point, but that failed as well. Thankfully the white horses riding to the defense of the fallen hero made the point better than my poor attempts. Thank you.
Fisher — Produce the judgment that says Bill Clinton is liable for sexual harassment. If you can’t do that, then move on. It’s getting tiresome.
P.S.: Bill Clinton has never been my “fallen hero.” (Frankly, I was a critic of his until I saw the right-wing try to railroad him out of the WH for something that didn’t amount to “high crimes and misdemeanors”.)
There is my point exactly, thank you. None such liability has been shown for Mr. Cain either. Your defense of Mr. Clinton here makes my point. We’ve already covered leagality dodges in an earlier post. We knew what he did, and gave him a pass. You continue to do so here.
Perjury is a crime.
Sorry you fine it tiresome, I find the duplicity quite entertaining, especially amidst the denials.
fisher — Careful you don’t venture into another legal thicket. Not all lies under oath constitute “perjury” under the criminal statute. The lie has to material to the issues at hand. It’s highly debatable that a lie about an affair with Ms. Lewinski was material to Paula Jones’ allegations about Mr. Clinton’s sexual harassment of her; in fact, one can make a strong case that it was not.
Sorry to complicate things for you, fisher, but in throwing out your judgments you’re dabbling in areas that you’re not trained in. It’s not that easy to find someone guilty of a crime under our system of laws, and that’s the way it should be. You’ll find it comes in handy for miscreants on your side of the aisle too.
Oh of course, sexual relations by a superior with a subordinate (affecting job status and environment) would have no material bearing on a sexual harrassment case. And it was only material enough to cost him his license. And the Senate vote fell to party lines so its all legal.
Thank you. Between you and tamerlane my initial point has been sufficiently supported.
Care to throw in Mr. Gingrich to round out the entertainment?
Sorry fisher, you’re out of your depth — what is “material” under the perjury statute is defined by case law and does not amount to merely “relevant.” And, frankly it’s not even clear that a subsequent affair (be it with an employee) would even be admissible in the Paula Jones case. Just because it’s legitimate grist in a deposition examination does not, without more, make it admissible in a trial. Also, as I’ve tried to explain to you, apparently in vain, that sexual relations between two consenting adults (even between a supervisor and an employee) is not sexual harassment (which requires unconsented-to behavior).
You betray your misunderstanding of materiality under the perjury statute by equating it to the standard for yanking a law license. A law license is a privilege that requires the holder to adhere to a certain code of conduct. So, what’s material for holding a license does not bear on the standard of materiality required for criminal liability under the perjury statute.
Yes, indeed, the vote in the Senate trial was necessarily a political one, as was the voting of the articles of impeachment in the House of Representatives. Your beloved Constitution set it up that way — as a political, not a legal, process. By refusing to convict and remove Mr. Clinton from the presidency to which he was elected by citizens of the United States, the Senate, as then constituted, exercised its political judgment. If you have a problem with the process, take up with the framers of the Constitution.
Can you get over your Clinton Derangement Syndrome? The first step to recovery is to admit you suffer from it.
You’re right, fisher. Mr. Cain deserves the exact same press treatment as Mr. Clinton got — which is to say, they should investigate and expose every sexual dalliance, major and minor, he ever had and then they should try and drumbeat him out of office. Oh yes, and they should hound Mrs. Cain for not leaving him for his various transgressions against their marriage.
Fisher — What’s hilarious about your concern for Mr. Cain is that he appears to be cut from the same hound-dog cloth as Mr. Clinton. In fact, I’ll warrant they’d have a fine time out on the town together.
Down to the selective memory of press treatment, entertaining indeed.
I have no concern for either individual. I am merely amused by the pirouettes required to maintain the duplicity.
“he APPEARS to be”
“We can also agree that he has admitted to this affair.”
On point and kick.
NES, I think you had fisher pegged from the start.
fisher: I WIN THE DEBATE!!!
LOL PJ! I was thinking the same thing!
Yes, PJ and imust, it’s very odd how very deep the Clinton Derangement Syndrome runs. WJC left office eleven long years ago, but the right-wing is still writhing over him. It’s a sickness. (ROFL — I sincerely hope we won’t be suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome after he leaves office. If we do, we’ll have to seek out fisher for some tips on how not to deal with it.)