BROADDRICK WANTED TO JUST GET THE STORY "OUT THERE"

Arkansas Democrat Gazette ^ | 2-99 | Michael Leahy

[RAT Patrol]

It still amazes me that the 'rats defended a rapist and attacked the victim.

[doug from upland]

After all we've seen from the RATS, I guess I am no longer amazed, just disgusted.

[The Real Eddie01]

It's not that amazing really.

A liberal is a groupthinker by definition. The group and the affiliation to that group become so powerful, that somewhere along the line it is inevitable that the liberal witnesses harm done to innocent people and chooses to ignore the injustice to remain in the group.

When this line is crossed, the only way to go back is to admit that your whole belief system is flawed, that everything you've fought for is a fraud. This is nearly impossible for a liberal.

Better to accept the bearing of false witness, the destruction of character, and yes even violent physical harm done to good, decent and innocent people, then admit you are and always have been a dupe, fraud and intellectual midget (PC small person).

Eddie01 "Liberals Lie About Everything all the Time"

[Taiwan Bocks]

No kidding!

Imagine if it was a white republican!

[bandleader]

Stop Being AMAZED By"The RATS"!They will do ANYTHING to win POWER!!

[eshu]

Imagine if it was a white republican!

An actress named Selene Walters accused Ronald Reagan of raping her back in the 1950's when he was President of the Screen Actors Guild. (link)

[stylin19a]

The seldom told story is, x42(i)came back and raped her again. hence, Juanita was raped twice by this lowlife.

[doug from upland]

What took you so long? Defending Clinton by attacking Reagan. That's getting a little old.

[1rudeboy]

Good grief. So what do you suppose, the Reagan-rape story was suppressed by the virulently pro-Reagan media?

[Howlin]

a president of whom we can no longer say that such accusations are "preposterous" or "beyond credibility" or "outrageous."

Think about that for a minute, and then ask yourself this: did you EVER hear one person, friend or foe of Bill Clinton's, say anything remotely close to that? I never heard anybody even attempt to make the case that he "just isn't that kind of guy," or "he'd never do anything like that.

Interesting.

[eshu]

Taiwan Bocks wrote "Imagine if it was a white republican! (who had been accused of rape).

I replied by posting links to Selene Walters' accusation of similar behavior by Ronald Reagan in order to make the point that we don't have to imagine - it's already happened.

Now, does this mean that I am "defending Clinton by attacking Reagan" or suggesting that "the Reagan-rape story was suppressed by the virulently pro-Reagan media"? Nope.

I have no idea why the media chose to ignore the "Reagan-rape" story, but I can speculate:

1) Maybe it had something to do with the fact that Reagan had already been out of office for 3 years by the time the story broke, so it didn't seem relevant anymore.

2)Maybe the media ignored this story because it happened decades before Reagan became president.

3) Or maybe the media ignored this story because the symptoms of Reagan's mental deterioration were obvious by 1991 and sympathy seemed to be the order of the day, rather than vindictiveness.

4) Maybe Selene Walters was deemed not credible, or had some other grudge against Reagan that later came to light, thus casting doubt upon her motivation.

In the end, who can really know for sure? Not us, I'd wager.

[1rudeboy]

You can't be serious. If the lib-media had a shot, it would've take it . . . your pretensions toward even-handedness notwithstanding.

[eshu]

correction:

Maybe the media ignored this story because it happened decades before Reagan became president

--should read---

Maybe the media ignored this story because it SUPPOSEDLY happened decades before Reagan became president

The accusation itself was the story which the media ignored, not the event - just wanted to make that distinction clear.

[eshu]

The media had "a shot" to go after Reagan on Ms. Walters' rape accusation. Indeed, the book in which the charges first appeared sold quite well, and Selene Walters repeated the exact same charges in an interview with People that year.

Like I said (you may wish to reread my previous post) it may be that the media collectively intuited that the charges were to old to be relevant, that since Reagan was already out of office the story wasn't relevant, that Walters wasn't credible, that Reagan was a beloved figure who deserved sympathy rather than dirt-digging, or whatever.

[JohnGalt]

Do you really think the stories are similiar:

KELLEY CLAIMS: Reagan met starlet Selene Walters in a Hollywood nightclub in the early 1950s. "Although I was on a date," she quotes Walters as saying, "Ronnie kept whispering in my ear, 'I'd like to call you. How can I get in touch with you?' " Hoping that Reagan, then president of the Screen Actors Guild, could boost her career, Walters gave him her address and was surprised when he came calling at 3 A.M. "He pushed his way inside and said he just had to see me. He forced me on the couch . . . and said, 'Let's just get to know each other.' It was the most pitched battle I've ever had, and suddenly in a matter of seconds I lost. . . . They call it date rape today. . . ."

SELENE WALTERS SAYS: Kelley's account of his late-night visit is essentially accurate, although he never forced his way into her apartment. "I opened the door. Then it was the battle of the couch. I was fighting him. I didn't want him to make love to me. He's a very big man, and he just had his way. Date rape? No, God, no, that's [Kelley's] phrase. I didn't have a chance to have a date with him." Walters says she bears Reagan no ill will, and has even voted for him:
"I don't think he meant to harm me."

[RJCogburn]

It still amazes me that the 'rats defended a rapist and attacked the victim.

Yes, but is it much more amazing than the complete lie down and play dead stance of the Senate Republicans during impeachment?

Rhetorical question.

[doug from upland]

Thanks to our buddy Trent Lott for that.

[eshu]

Hmmm... interesting, I had read both accounts before but it's illuminating to see them side by side like this. Walters' acct. is certainly less sensational than Kelley's and I wonder whether:

a)Kelley embellished Walters' account somehow or

b)Walters herself was less forthcoming with People than she was with Kelley

In either event, it's worth remembering that even if RR was "fighting" and "had his way" with this young woman, it happened a long time ago, in a different era, when that sort of thing was more acceptable (albeit rarely discussed) - the term "date rape" didn't even exist yet!

..a more innocent (naive?) era for sure....

[JohnGalt]

Well, yeah, but Walters is just one person telling a story to a scandal author; the Broadrick case has a lot more detail and compelling facts associated with her account.

I just cannot see an honest person seeing a similiarity in the stories.