Rand Paul fires shot at Clinton

[QueEx]

Rand Paul Rips Bill Clinton's
"Predatory" Behavior Amid Potential Hillary Candidacy

Shot at Bill Clinton, brushes Hillary's Presidential Campaign



<script height="360px" width="640px" src="http://player.ooyala.com/iframe.js#ec=NueWplazohCN95fUwRkVKWhlfkMAxrNz&pbid=b171980b65ae4996bffea4da902c7846"></script>​

DAVID GREGORY: Final political question for you. Whoever the Republican nominee is, there's a good chance, as we look at it now, that one candidate on the Democratic side who'll have a lot of momentum, whether she gets the nomination or not we don't know, is Hillary Clinton. And an interesting profile in Vogue magazine, including this analysis.

"While her husband jokes," meaning you, "that his gut feeling is that Hillary Clinton will not run for president is good a thing since all the polls show her trouncing any opponent, Kelley, the wife of Senator Rand Paul practically cuts him off to say that, 'Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky should complicate his return to the White House, even as first spouse. I would say his behavior was predatory, offensive to women,' she tells me." Are these issues something that you really think will be fair game and an appropriate part of a campaign, should she be the nominee?

SEN. RAND PAUL: Well, you know, I mean, the <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Democrats</span>, one of their big issues is they <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">have concocted and said Republicans are committing a war on women</span>. One of the <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">workplace laws and rules</span> that I think are good is that <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">bosses shouldn't prey on young interns in their office</span>.

And I think really the <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">media seems to have given President Clinton a pass on this. He took advantage of a girl that was 20 years old and an intern in his office. There is no excuse for that, and that is predatory behavior, and it should be something we shouldn't want to associate with people who would take advantage of a young girl in his office.</span>

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 advantage of a young girl in their office? I mean, really. And then they have the gall to stand up and say, "Republicans are having a war on women"? So, yes, I think it's a factor. Now, it's not Hillary's fault. And, I mean--

DAVID GREGORY: But it should be an issue--

SEN. RAND PAUL: --but it is a factor in judging Bill Clinton in history.

DAVID GREGORY: Right, but is it something that Hillary Clinton should be judged on if she were a candidate in 2016?

SEN. RAND PAUL: Yeah-- no, I'm not saying that. This is with regard to the Clintons, and <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">sometimes it's hard to separate one[Hillary] from the other [Bill].</span> But I would say that, with regard to his place in history, that it certainly is a discussion. And I think in my state, you know, people tend to sort of frown upon that. You know, if there were someone in my community who did that, they would be socially-- we would dissociate from somebody who would take advantage of a young women in the workplace.
​

SOURCE

 

[QueEx]

Why is Rand Paul bringing up Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky ???

Why Is Rand Paul Talking About
Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky?​

There isn't much political logic to dredging the old scandal
up — except as a move to shore up his credibility with social
conservatives skeptical of libertarianism. ​

In recent weeks, one Republican after another has come forward to rebut the Democratic claim that the GOP is waging a “war on women.” The responses have ranged from homey (Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers responding to Barack Obama’s State of the Union address by noting that she’d given birth just eight weeks earlier) to creepy (former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee saying Democrats think women can’t control their “libidos.”) But perhaps most puzzling has been the tack taken by Rand Paul, who in interview after interview after interview has accused Democrats of “hypocrisy” for claiming to support women’s rights while giving Bill Clinton a pass for his “predatory” behavior towards Monica Lewinsky.

Yes, Monica Lewinsky, who enjoyed her 15 minutes of fame 16 years ago. Luckily for Democrats, Paul hasn’t cottoned on to their affection for John F. Kennedy (naked White House pool parties with suspected communist spies) and Franklin Roosevelt (died in the presence of his mistress).

It doesn’t take long to grasp the flaws in Paul’s strategy. For starters, Clinton’s infidelities didn’t hurt his popularity at the time. Between January 1998, when the Lewinsky scandal broke, and February 1999, when the senate voted not to impeach him, Clinton registered the highest approval ratings of his presidency:

And women backed him at higher rates than men. Hillary Clinton, who many consider Paul’s real target, registered her highest popularity during that same period:

Once the impeachment circus ended, Bill Clinton’s popularity did dip, leading some to suggest—as they continued too throughout the 2000 campaign—that the country was suffering “Clinton fatigue.” But the problem for Paul is that these days, Americans seem fatigued with the fatigue. A July 2012 Gallup poll found Clinton’s approval at an impressive 66 percent, higher than it had been since he left office. Among women, Clinton’s approval rating was 63 percent. It was 44 percent among Republicans. By comparison, President Obama’s most recent approval ratings are 43 percent among women and 12 percent among Republicans. Which helps explain why Paul is the only prominent figure in today’s GOP spending as much time attacking the last Democratic president as the current one.

So why the anti-Clinton offensive? Because Paul isn’t speaking to most Americans—he’s speaking to the Christian right. Paul is presumably well aware that while economic conservatives loved his father, social conservatives did not. In the Iowa caucuses, for instance, Ron Paul won 28 percent among voters who said the deficit was their primary issue but only seven percent among those who said it was abortion.

For months now, Rand Paul has been trying to make inroads where his father did not. Last June, at a conference organized by former Christian Coalition Executive Director Ralph Reed, he put a new twist on his skepticism about foreign aid, arguing that America is funding Islamic regimes that oppress Christians. “There is a war on Christianity,” he insisted, “and your government, or more correctly, you, the taxpayer, are funding it.” Last October, he told students at the Jerry Falwell-founded Liberty University that “America is in a full-blown spiritual crisis.” And last week, he told the anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage American Principles Project that “‘Libertarian’ … doesn’t mean ‘libertine’ … I don’t see libertarianism as, you can do whatever you want. There is a role for government, there’s a role for family, there’s a role for marriage, there’s a role for the protection of life.”

Paul can’t exactly crusade against gay marriage
or the legalization of pot. Bashing Bill Clinton
provides a politically safer way to champion moralism.​

Paul’s effort to revive Lewinsky-gate is best seen as part of this effort. Given that one of his key selling points in the GOP primary will be his (relative) support among younger Americans, Paul can’t exactly crusade against gay marriage or the legalization of pot. Bashing Bill Clinton provides a politically safer way to champion moralism. It certainly helped George W. Bush, who in 2000 won Christian right votes, despite playing down social issues, because he played up his personal, anti-Clintonian religious and moral code. Paul seems to be attempting something similar, telling Maureen Dowd, “In my small town, we would disassociate, we would in some ways socially shun, somebody that had an inappropriate affair with someone’s daughter or with a babysitter or something like that.” (Paul actually lives in the third biggest city in Kentucky, but you get the point).

Paul’s anti-Clinton gambit reminds us that, ideologically, the GOP is divided into three parts, not two. There’s a Tea Party wing focused primarily on debt and the size of government, a socially conservative wing concerned primarily about abortion and the government’s alleged hostility to people of faith, and a party establishment that’s more hawkish on foreign policy and more willing to make the ideological compromises necessary to win. Paul’s challenge is to solidify his support among the first group while making gains with the second two. It’s no coincidence that as he was courting social conservatives last week by bashing Bill Clinton, he was courting establishment hawks by writing a letter to Obama arguing that only Congress should have the power to lift sanctions on Iran.

Obviously, no one knows whether Paul’s efforts to expand his support will succeed. What is clear is that, right now, no other Republican candidate is trying as hard.
​

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...bout-bill-clinton-and-monica-lewinsky/283698/

 

[thoughtone]

Re: Why is Rand Paul bringing up Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky ???

Why Is Rand Paul Talking About
Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky?​

Because like most Republicans, libertarians and wing nuts they can't run on their own record!

 

[QueEx]

Re: Why is Rand Paul bringing up Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky ???

<iframe width="780" height="1500" src="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/rand-pauls-secret-weapon-hillary-clinton/360409/" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Rand is one corny dude.

 

[GET YOU HOT]

Clinton should be fired upon through the crosshairs of a high powered rifle...