Paul Ties Hillary Clinton to Lewinsky Scandal; Illustrating GOP's Tone-Deafness With Women
Republicans recognize that they have a women problem. So far, proposed solutions have included holding seminars with their male members on how to not sound sexist, getting Mike Huckabee to shout about women's libidos, and now, trying to make people outraged about Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky in 1998. In an appearance on Meet the Press Sunday, Senator Rand Paul made clear that he’s going to do everything in his power to link Hillary Clinton to her husband’s indiscretions fourteen years ago, because that’s obviously relevant to her presidential aspirations.
When asked whether Bill’s infidelity in the 1990s would be fair game for political attacks in a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, Paul launched into a roughly 200-word answer that amounted, essentially, to “yes.”
The Democrats, one of their big issues, is they’ve concocted and say [sic], ‘Republicans are committing a war on women.’ One of the workplace rules and laws that I think is good is that bosses shouldn’t prey on young interns in their office. And I think really the media seems to have given President Clinton a pass on this.
Let’s hold it right there. As anybody who was ever within twenty feet of a television in the late '90s can tell you, claiming that the media didn’t sufficiently cover the Lewinsky scandal is like saying the Internet doesn’t sufficiently cover cat videos. It’s a laughable, absurd thing to say. Paul — perhaps still smarting from the boost that Clinton gave President Obama’s reelection campaign two years ago — seems to be upset that the media has moved on in the last decade.
He took advantage of a girl that was 20 years old and an intern in his office ... we shouldn’t want to associate with people who would take advantage of a young girl in his office. This isn’t having an affair. I mean, this isn’t me saying, ‘Oh, he’s had an affair, we shouldn’t talk to him.’ Someone who takes an advantage of a young girl in their office? Really? And then they have the gall to stand up and say ‘Republicans are having a war on women?’
If Paul believes so strongly in guilt by association, he’s essentially indicting himself as a racist, given that he’s hired multiple white supremacists to serve on his staff. Anyway, that aside, look at the argument Paul is making: Bill Clinton took advantage of a young woman in his office in 1998; therefore, Democrats shouldn’t be allowed to call out Republican sexism in 2014. The logic is so tight, you can practically hear it collapsing into itself.
The kicker is at the end, when the junior Senator is asked (again) if Bill’s behavior in the White House should be held against Hillary if and when she runs in 2016.
I’m not saying that. This was with regard to the Clintons, and sometimes it’s hard to separate one from the other.
And why might it be hard to separate one from the other? Could it because some people go on TV and start acting like they’re the same person? Nah, that couldn’t be it.
The Republican belief that the party will win over women not by changing its many anti-woman policies, but by waging irrelevant attacks on Bill Clinton is truly outstanding.