BROADDRICK WANTED TO JUST GET THE STORY "OUT THERE"

Arkansas Democrat Gazette ^ | 2-99 | Michael Leahy

[M. Peach]

This should be an interesting laughable comparison-

In Kitty Kelley's 1991 book Nancy Reagan: The Unauthorized Biography, actress Selene Walters accused Ronald Reagan of raping her. People magazine did a follow up interview with Walters, and all in all it had about the same credibility as the Juanita Broaddrick story. Except of course, there was no television network devoting most of its time to it, the Wall Street Journal did not devote its editorial page to it, it did not appear as headlines in all the major newspapers, it was not the topic of discussion on every talking head program, and Rush Limbaugh never even mentioned it. In fact I have not seen nor heard any mention of this anywhere by any media source other than on the net. Some liberal media, eh?

The call now from the Right and the media is for Clinton to answer to the accusation. When Reagan was approached with the charge by a reporter outside one of his biannual treks to church, he said, "I don't think a church would be the proper place to use the word I would have to use in discussing that." That was a good enough answer for conservatives though.

But we have to remember, Ronald Reagan is the moral example of conservative Americans.

Divorced, knocked up his bride to be and slapped around his daughter. Bill Clinton did none of those things, but that does not matter because he did far far worse, he got a couple BJ's from a bimbo at work.

I have to say that in her interview, Monica is one of the very few people who hit the nail right on the head with her giggly frivolity concerning it, for giggly frivolity is just what a couple BJs are. Not as Ken Starr and Company would have you believe, cause to threaten numerous families with twenty years in prison and the end of the rule of law as we know it.

Again here we are with the problem conservatives are far overdue in suffering, the abject hypocrisy of it all. The good news being, they just don't get it, and probably never will.

When the Reagan rape story recently hit the Internet, it was interesting to notice that accusations against Clinton are proof of guilt, while accusations against Reagan are just a bunch of partisan lies. But not a few moderates agreed that to be fair, both presidents should be made to answer for the accusations.

I suppose we could get Ken Starr to personally go unstrap Ronnie from his poopy chair and drag him down to some Grand Jury he has going somewhere to answer up. But I don't think much would come out rather than cries of "Mommie Mommie, I have to pee-pee," or "I liberated Buchenwald Mommie!"

And then Clinton. Gosh, the call for him to come forward sure is a swarthy partisan game. If he denies it, the story will be what a joke it is for Clinton to deny anything. We'd be hearing that attached to the end of the finger waving denial from now until doomsday.

[RAT Patrol]

Yeah, I agree. (Your question was really a statement, wasn't it? The answer is obvious.)

[lasereye]

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.

Al Hunt once said in one of his columns that what Clinton was accused of was 'not consistent with the Bill Clinton they know, according to women who know him' or something to that effect. I forget what point in time that was. It may have been in reference to the Paula Jones situation before the Monica Lewinsky disclosures, or after Lewinsky allegations hit but while she was still stonewalling. Tells you what kind of shill Hunt is for Democrats.

[EaglesUpForever]

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

Actually, it's quite consistent with their actions throughout recent history.

[M. Peach]

FYI - I took this from another web site and did not author it....

[lasereye]

One difference is that Clinton was the Arkansas Attorney General when he raped Broadrick and was a Governor and President when other things transpired.

[eshu]

The reason why I posted this info in the first place was because someone wrote "Imagine if it was a white republican" (who had been accused of rape).

My point was that we don't have to "imagine," since not only was RR accused of rape, but the book in which this accusation was made even hit #1 on the NYT bestseller list. For some reason, the accuser only did one interview, and then the public forgot all about it.

Now, as I've already noted, there are many possible reasons why the media chose to downplay this story.

It may be for a dramatic conflict of this nature to draw ratings, you need a vindictive and vigorous victim to play the role of accuser, not an elderly woman who has long since forgiven her rapist and even voted for him! That would explain a lot, actually.

[snopercod]

Thanks for the repost. [original thread] [another original thread]

[eshu]

In Kitty Kelley's 1991 book Nancy Reagan: The Unauthorized Biography, actress Selene Walters accused Ronald Reagan of raping her. People magazine did a follow up interview with Walters, and all in all it had about the same credibility as the Juanita Broaddrick story. Except of course, there was no television network devoting most of its time to it, the Wall Street Journal did not devote its editorial page to it, it did not appear as headlines in all the major newspapers, it was not the topic of discussion on every talking head program, and Rush Limbaugh never even mentioned it. In fact I have not seen nor heard any mention of this anywhere by any media source other than on the net.

Wasn't the Monica BJ scandal first broken on the Drudge Report?

Hard to believe that there was no internet, no MSNBC, no freerepublic.com, no drudgereport.com, back in 1991... did FOX NEWS even exist yet?

LOL, that might explain a lot too!

[M. Peach]

What I find so intellectually dishonest are those who continue to say that the President is entitled to his so called "private life" and it's all about sex.

Anything unethical (sex included) that the most powerful person in the world does that would subject him to blackmail that would affect the lives of perhaps everyone on the planet - is not about one having a "private life" - besides - it wasn't about sex, it was about perjury, suborning perjury and denying a U.S. Citizen the right to a fair trial.

[cyncooper]

Anything unethical (sex included) that the most powerful person in the world does that would subject him to blackmail that would affect the lives of perhaps everyone on the planet

It boggles my mind that the likes of Monica Lewinsky was transferred to the Pentagon, for crying out loud, and given security clearance. We know security was treated with little regard during the clinton era...and this is but one manifestation.

[Hon]

Timely bump!