The Democrats’ Contradiction

Here’s what I don’t understand. When women were coming out of the closet saying Bill Clinton sexually harassed them or worse, the Democrats said it was old news. When women start coming out of the closet yelling that 20 years ago John Bolton yelled at them, all of a sudden we must treat 20 year old accusations seriously. Why?

About the author

Erick Erickson

View all posts

6 Comments

  • You might add that the LA Times thought it relevant when women came out of the closet to complain about Arnold Schwarzenneger. It’s selective deafness in action. It’s fine that character matters, it just needs to matter across the board with people in leadership roles, and people do need to ask why it isn’t.

  • Sexual harrassment is well, “just sex”.

    Yelling at someone is well, “just mean”.

    Typical of Republicans to be mean, isn’t it, ya’ll Moonbats.

  • Actually what the Democrats said about Clinton’s women before they said it was “old news” was to make snide comments about certain of these women as being “trailer trash.” So the tactic was to first ridicule, then discredit, then ignore. I don’t recall the exact quote from James Carville, but it had to do with dragging a $10 dollar bill thru a trailer court and seeing who comes out. Beneath contempt, but it did the trick.

  • Is it possible that Bolton really is a shitty choice for UN ambassador if for no other reason than because he won’t appear to be diplomatic to other nations? Is there no other person in the entire United States of America who could do just as good or better job than Bolton? Does being a Republican and a Bush supporter mean we have to blindly support every decision he makes and do so ever more diligently when Democrats attack the decision? Can’t we just say, “you’re right Mr. Democrat, Bolton does suck” without the fear that admitting so will completely reverse the balance of power between the two parties? Just wondering…

  • Amen Matthew. I’ve never ever seen a party so full of sheep in my life. How Bolton is qualified to be an ambassador I have no idea. Doesn’t the job requirement of UN Ambassador actually entail getting along with people? If he can’t even convince U.S. Senators that he should be confirmed how is he going to get the UN do agree with anything we want to do?

  • One of these is relevant to the job. The other isn’t.

    It’s also worth mentioning that whatever you think of the excuses given by Democrats for Clinton’s behavior, you’d probably be hard pressed to find anyone (within reason) who would tell you that Clinton (or the party) benefited from the whole situation. The Republicans would do well to learn from that situation rather than emulate it and say, “but they did it, too!” when people complain. It only causes further loss of confidence in both parties when this sort of thing happens.

    Besides, the accusations against Bolton are really not that old. That the evidence is strong enough to cause concerns among those within the party should tell you that this may not be a battle worth picking.