That 90s Show

[EasyAce]

The real problem with the new liberal awakening about Bill Clinton isn’t the hypocrisy, it’s the historical revisionism.
By Jonah Goldberg
http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/453865/bill-clinton-liberals-hypocrisy-historical-revisionism

. . . My scorecard is now completely illegible. Right-wingers tell me that Al Franken must resign for behavior
far less offensive than what Roy Moore has been accused of, but also that, even if the allegations against Moore are
true, he shouldn’t drop out of his Senate race because it was 40 years ago. Even the governor of Alabama says she
believes Moore’s accusers but will vote for him . . .

. . . Lots of people, here at NRO and elsewhere, have written many fine articles on what they believe to be the
hypocrisy and bravery-on-the-cheap of liberal writers and politicians suddenly discovering that Bill Clinton’s predatory
sexual behavior was double-plus ungood. And they have a good case: Some of these tardy conversions do have the
air of Frenchmen declaring in late 1945 that they were in the resistance all along . . .

. . . my real problem with the new liberal awakening today isn’t the hypocrisy; it’s the historical revisionism. This
morning, I heard an MSNBC reporter talking about how “we” didn’t really think through the consequences of Bill
Clinton’s actions in the 1990s. Michelle Goldberg (no relation) spends the bulk of her New York Times column blaming
conservatives for making it hard to believe the truth about Bill Clinton . . .

. . . I could go on about this for quite a while, but I’ll cut to the chase and say a word about the hypocrisy. During
the latter half of the 1980s and the tail end of the Bush presidency, feminists and their liberal allies had worked
tireless — and sometimes fanatically — to fight sexual harassment, very broadly defined. They pelted — rightly —
Senator Bob Packwood from the public stage. They derailed Senator John Tower’s nomination to be secretary of
defense on the grounds that he was a “womanizer.” Even entirely consensual sexual relationships between powerful
male superiors and subordinates were inherently exploitative, they argued. Hence, Clarence Thomas’s alleged
overtures were out-frick’n-rageous according to liberals.

And then they threw it all away to defend Bill Clinton. His “affair” with Lewinsky — hardly his only extramarital affair,
according to 8 katrillion rumors spread off-camera by liberal journalists — was suddenly just an attempt to “connect”
with another person. Never mind that he couldn’t remember her name and led on a naïve intern. The Big He was a
lovable dog, and anyone who had a problem with that was the problem. Ronald Reagan wouldn’t take off his jacket
in the Oval Office. Bill Clinton literally took off his pants in it . . .

[Cyber Liberty]

It's temporary.  Once this Judge Moore thing has passed, the Clintons (and Franken) will have their Mojo given back to them. 

[EasyAce]

It's temporary.  Once this Judge Moore thing has passed, the Clintons (and Franken) will have their Mojo given back to them.

I dunno. What with all the stuff beginning to seep out about, among other things, how much
sexual harassment has cost Congress recently.

Makes you wonder. If Congressional and White House briefers instructed incoming staffers that
there was no room for sexual harassment, who was the first among them to paste a sign on
a door somewhere in either building saying, This room for sexual harassment?

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

I dunno. What with all the stuff beginning to seep out about, among other things, how much
sexual harassment has cost Congress recently.

Makes you wonder. If Congressional and White House briefers instructed incoming staffers that
there was no room for sexual harassment, who was the first among them to paste a sign on
a door somewhere in either building saying, This room for sexual harassment?

Hasn't cost Congress a dime.  That's what taxpayers are for.

[EasyAce]

Hasn't cost Congress a dime.  That's what taxpayers are for.

I know. I was being facetious.

(Got to be careful with that word, though. The last time I used in conversation someone prattled about
me saying I was a fascist . . .)

[Cyber Liberty]

I dunno. What with all the stuff beginning to seep out about, among other things, how much
sexual harassment has cost Congress recently.

Makes you wonder. If Congressional and White House briefers instructed incoming staffers that
there was no room for sexual harassment, who was the first among them to paste a sign on
a door somewhere in either building saying, This room for sexual harassment?

I think a lot of the young fillies have the same idea about sexual harassment that Monica Lewinsky and all these broken starlets in Hollywood have these days:  It's just another tool to get a leg up (no pun intended) on the competition.  I'm sure to catch my share of flack for that, too.