Rand Paul demands Dems return money raised by ‘sexual predator’ Bill Clinton

[Lucille]

Rules for Radicals

#4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
#5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
#8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”
#13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

Has Lewinsky said anything since all this started?

 

[Dr.3D]

We saw the spotlight swinging over toward Bill as Chinagate was being uncovered, when all of a sudden, somebody said, "hey look over here, there's semen on that dress.", and poof, the spotlight missed it's target as everybody started looking at the distraction.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

I think this is all about neutralizing Bill. He would be the biggest fundraiser and a major cog in the Clinton machine should she run in 2016. Not many talk about that aspect. Shit, if Bill can do what he did for Obama at the DNC, imagine what he will do for Hillary.

I'm going with brilliant.

 

[69360]

This is a move they have to make to neutralize the Clinton money machine. Bill has to be shut down.

Expect more where this came from the Clinton closet is overflowing with skeletons.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

So fucking stupid for him to continually bring this up. Clinton's approval ratings increased during the Lewinsky scandal and made the Republican witch hunters look out of touch. If you're going to attack the Clinton brand, go after Hilary and her flip-flopping on legitimate issues that liberals, independents, and libertarians can agree on like war.

 

[dannno]

So fucking stupid for him to continually bring this up. Clinton's approval ratings increased during the Lewinsky scandal and made the Republican witch hunters look out of touch. If you're going to attack the Clinton brand, go after Hilary and her flip-flopping on legitimate issues that liberals, independents, and libertarians can agree on like war.

Rand is taking a completely different approach.

The Republicans always were concerned that he lied about it under oath, and Democrats were always like "So what? He lied about sex, that's his personal business." and the argument would end rightly so. I honestly don't care that he lied about sex under oath. What Rand is pointing out is that the Democrats have a double standard on the issue in this sense, and he's right.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

Rules for Radicals

#4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
#5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
#8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”
#13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

Has Lewinsky said anything since all this started?

I don't know, but the focus should be on the other sexual harassment cases. Monica's brother was in my fraternity. He was an alumni so I only saw him on occasion and I didn't want to bug him about something he will have to hear about for the rest of his life, but from what he has told me Monica did not feel victimized or exploited. Their number one emotion was annoyance at having to deal with paparazzi.

Plenty of sexual scandals from Mr. Clinton to go after. Monica is just the most high profile. Wish he would rattle off the other cases that didn't involve willing participants. It's a thirty year history with at least 6 known instances.

Interesting note: Monica Lewinsky's brother was nicknamed Boner. It had nothing to do with the scandal though as he received the nickname as a freshman and the scandal didn't break until he was a junior.

 

[devil21]

We saw the spotlight swinging over toward Bill as Chinagate was being uncovered, when all of a sudden, somebody said, "hey look over here, there's semen on that dress.", and poof, the spotlight missed it's target as everybody started looking at the distraction.

Great commercial.

 

[TaftFan]

Ron still hasn't returned Don Black's donation, so not sure I agree with this move by Rand.

 

[staerker]

I appreciate what Rand is trying to do here, but all the Clintons have to do and you know for damn sure the media will have their back is bring up the Ron's newsletters to smear Rand with by guilt by association.

The newsletters posed absolutely no threat to Ron during the campaign. It was how he dealt with them.

The number one issue voters had with Ron were of no substance. It wasn't his positions, but rather his occasional stutter, and confused explanations.

Rand doesn't have this problem, one bit.

 

[Rudeman]

I appreciate what Rand is trying to do here, but all the Clintons have to do and you know for damn sure the media will have their back is bring up the Ron's newsletters to smear Rand with by guilt by association.

They're going to do that anyway, so might as well fight back where you can.


BTW it is so obvious that the Clintons plan to use the War on women attack to get Hillary elected. So Rand attacking it now and using Bill Clinton as the center of the attack is a smart move. Whether it ends up working or not time will tell, but Rand knows what they're going to do and he's trying to counter it.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

We saw the spotlight swinging over toward Bill as Chinagate was being uncovered, when all of a sudden, somebody said, "hey look over here, there's semen on that dress.", and poof, the spotlight missed it's target as everybody started looking at the distraction.

Basing impeachment hearings on his sexual adventures was a distraction but pointing out ingrained hypocrisy/double standards of Democratic machinery and making an issue about Them is an entirely different and very valid matter.
Target here is not Bill Clinton as I think is pretty clear. And this shows bit of unexpected break from norms of political orthodoxy, which is refreshingly bold.

 

[eleganz]

I think this was a strategic move to ncrease fundraising for himself and republicans in general for 2014. I don't see it making sense in any other way except it being an I intended snowball effect.

 

[jjdoyle]

Rand is taking a completely different approach.

The Republicans always were concerned that he lied about it under oath, and Democrats were always like "So what? He lied about sex, that's his personal business." and the argument would end rightly so. I honestly don't care that he lied about sex under oath. What Rand is pointing out is that the Democrats have a double standard on the issue in this sense, and he's right.

Actually, he isn't right, and this is a completely stupid approach. Unless he has hired a private detective that will be releasing some photos here soon, to make more to this story.

BUT, as it is, he is saying the Democrats should return money raised by Bill Clinton? Is Rand saying the same thing about money raised by Newt Gingrich? Rudy Giuliani? Fred Thompson? Or, others?

It's a completely stupid issue, and loses focus on Hillary (might actually HELP her).

UNLESS Rand has more on this, this is a complete waste of time IMO. I mean, is he ticked off because he is going down in certain polls, so this is the only route he can see to hope of reviving himself in some polls? Is he doing this to try and stay relevant, instead of focusing on issues like balancing the budget, the Federal Reserve, foreign policy, or something else?

Instead of attacking Hillary or Biden, both potential Democrat 2016 nominees, Rand is trying for some "guilt by association" method.
As if most Democrats (or, Americans in general) care.

Rand has endorsed Mitch McConnell. Do you know how many times he has been married (hint: not just once)? MORE importantly, do you know how his second marriage has political strings apparently attached to it? Tied directly to his personal wealth, that was apparently made through political connections?

I honestly don't get this. I thought 2016 was going to be about issues, and unless Rand has more cards to play on this issue, this is not the way to go.

 

[Crashland]

Even though they don't mean very much right now, I would not be surprised to see Rand get a slight bump in the polls for doing this. It seems that if you make a stink about something, your poll numbers go up. Rand had a bump from his drone filibuster. Then Cruz got a bump from the Obamacare/government shutdown (in the GOP nomination, not the general). Huckabee got a bump in the GOP polls after his controversial comments about women. Now Rand is going to get another bump because he's the only one in the whole Republican Party with the balls to go out there all by himself and go on the offensive against Bill Clinton and his fundraising, which is the only place the Democrats thought they were invulnerable.

And not only that, but this in particular is something that opens the door wide open for even more attacks on the Clintons that could change the public perception. It's a huge risk, yes, but you have to take these kind of risks if you want to win. It's either extremely stupid or a stroke of genius. I'm leaning towards genius, but we'll see what happens. As far as I'm concerned, Rand is already running for president, and the more votes he can secure early the better. Something like this just might bring people over from Huckabee or Cruz over to Rand. If you're going to make a stink about something, it had better be a strategic stink.

 

[Jamesiv1]

Rand will be attacked mercilessly regardless of what he says or doesn't.

^^straight up

If anyone thinks that backing down on this issue will save Rand from some measure of the media's wrath (or the wrath of anyone else) - I don't think so. As he gains ground, the temperature will rise, no matter what.

I say go for it.

"I'm just answering the questions you guys are asking me." --Rand Paul to the talking heads

 

[Jamesiv1]

Probably. But what he does or doesn't say WILL determine whether he is able to keep the moral high ground.

One keeps the moral high ground by keeping higher morals. Actions speak louder than words.

What do you think his Dad would do? I bet he would do that stuttering, hem and haw thing he does while dropping nuclear fucking bombs of truth on Slick Willy Clinton.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

One keeps the moral high ground by keeping higher morals. Actions speak louder than words.

What do you think his Dad would do? I bet he would do that stuttering, hem and haw thing he does while dropping nuclear fucking bombs of truth on Slick Willy Clinton.

Here's what Ron did, in real time, when the controversy was happening:



and again here:

 

[Jamesiv1]

Here's what Ron did, in real time, when the controversy was happening:



and again here:

Mushroom Cloud Rising

Except today, with his son running for President, Ron would probably hem and haw just a little bit more lol

 

[Rudeman]

Actually, he isn't right, and this is a completely stupid approach. Unless he has hired a private detective that will be releasing some photos here soon, to make more to this story.

BUT, as it is, he is saying the Democrats should return money raised by Bill Clinton? Is Rand saying the same thing about money raised by Newt Gingrich? Rudy Giuliani? Fred Thompson? Or, others?

It's a completely stupid issue, and loses focus on Hillary (might actually HELP her).

UNLESS Rand has more on this, this is a complete waste of time IMO. I mean, is he ticked off because he is going down in certain polls, so this is the only route he can see to hope of reviving himself in some polls? Is he doing this to try and stay relevant, instead of focusing on issues like balancing the budget, the Federal Reserve, foreign policy, or something else?

Instead of attacking Hillary or Biden, both potential Democrat 2016 nominees, Rand is trying for some "guilt by association" method.
As if most Democrats (or, Americans in general) care.

Rand has endorsed Mitch McConnell. Do you know how many times he has been married (hint: not just once)? MORE importantly, do you know how his second marriage has political strings apparently attached to it? Tied directly to his personal wealth, that was apparently made through political connections?

I honestly don't get this. I thought 2016 was going to be about issues, and unless Rand has more cards to play on this issue, this is not the way to go.

If Rand makes his campaign about social conservatism or infidelity then you might have a point. The Dems and especially the Clintons are using the "War on Women" against Republicans constantly and are without a doubt going to use if for Hillary's run. So if they are going to make it a central part of their campaign then it is a perfectly acceptable area to critique them on. It is no different than when Social Cons make morality a big part of their campaign.

So yea, you're completely missing the point of what Rand is doing.