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

[CaseyJones]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ney-raised-se/

Sen. Rand Paul, who has been in a bit of a tiff recently with the Clintons, says that any Democrat who has raised campaign money with former President Clinton should return the cash to protest his sexual behavior in the White House.

Speaking on C-Span’s “Newsmakers” program, in an interview airing Sunday, Mr. Paul said Democrats are being hypocritical by criticizing Republicans as waging a war on women while at the same time embracing Mr. Clinton, who was impeached for lying about a sexual relationship with a White House intern.

“They can’t have it both ways. And so I really think that anybody who wants to take money from Bill Clinton or have a fundraiser has a lot of explaining to do. In fact, I think they should give the money back,” Mr. Paul, Kentucky Republican, said. “If they want to take position on women’s rights, by all means do. But you can’t do it and take it from a guy who was using his position of authority to take advantage of young women in the workplace.”

Mr. Paul recently called Mr. Clinton a “sexual predator” for his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

[jllundqu]

Not sure I agree with his tactic here... As wrong as Bill Clinton was/is... he is still immensely popular. Pointing out the double standard is a good thing, but this could backfire

[Cowlesy]

Not sure I agree with his tactic here... As wrong as Bill Clinton was/is... he is still immensely popular. Pointing out the double standard is a good thing, but this could backfire

I agree. Dumb to lock horns with Bill Clinton when it's Hillary running. People usually close ranks behind people when they are subject to these sorts of attacks.

[Kords21]

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.

[Brett85]

Not sure I agree with his tactic here... As wrong as Bill Clinton was/is... he is still immensely popular. Pointing out the double standard is a good thing, but this could backfire

Yeah, I wonder why Rand's advisors aren't telling him to drop this, or if they are and Rand just isn't listening to them.

[jj-]

Rand is doing the smart thing, he is too smart for a lot people to understand.

[enhanced_deficit]

Very smart move by Rand politically.
This might open up Clinton's hidden scandals.


Bill Clinton and the 15-year-old 'masseuse': I met him twice, claims ...
Mar 5, 2011 - 'Heroin-dealing musician' arrested in connection with Hoffman death ... by paedophile Jeffrey Epstein reveals how she twice met Bill Clinton.


Virginia Roberts was 15 years old when she got to know Epstein in 1998.
She alleges that her duties included being "sexually exploited by Epstein's adult male peers including royalty".

Jeffrey Epstein: How the Hedge Fund Mogul Pedophile Got Off Easy ...
www.thedailybeast.com/.../jeffrey-epstein-how-the-bill...‎
Mar 25, 2011 - Documents obtained by The Daily Beast reveal how pedophile hedge fund mogul Jeffrey Epstein escaped a hefty jail sentence despite ...

Jeffrey Epstein: Sex Offender, Yes. Billionaire, No. - Forbes
www.forbes.com/.../jeffrey-epstein-sex-offender-yes-bil...‎Forbes

Feb 28, 2011 - Palm Beach pervert Jeffrey Epstein is all over the news today, thanks to a series of stories in the UK's Daily Mail linking the convicted pedophile ...

[dannno]

Rand is doing the smart thing, he is too smart for a lot people to understand.

Very smart move by Rand.

This might open up Clinton's hidden scandals like these.

+rep

[dannno]

Not sure I agree with his tactic here... As wrong as Bill Clinton was/is... he is still immensely popular. Pointing out the double standard is a good thing, but this could backfire

What it will do is make principled Democrats question why their loyalty stands where it does. It will make scumbag Democrats fear success and personal coverage. This will likely occur subconsciously, but it will be effective.

[jj-]

What it will do is make principled Democrats question why their loyalty stands where it does. It will make scumbag Democrats fear success and personal coverage. This will likely occur subconsciously, but it will be effective.

It's also not just against Hillary. Whenever a Democrat that is not Hillary says some "War on Women" nonsense, Rand can just ask: if you're so concerned about women, why do you take money from a sexual predator?

[radiofriendly]

Perhaps the tactic here is to show--and I mean really show--that he is willing to actually fight. And his real audience is big donors who, for once, see that Rand Paul is the real deal and perhaps the last chance for the republic?

[mrsat_98]

Looks like someone is running for President.

[klamath]

I agree. Dumb to lock horns with Bill Clinton when it's Hillary running. People usually close ranks behind people when they are subject to these sorts of attacks.

Agree. What he said is true. Many executives have been charged for Sexual harassment just because of the position of authority they hold over a subordinate but this battle has been fought and lost. Rand will harm himself with this line.

[jtstellar]

this isn't a fictional reality

i would still like to see ron run for president but i'm not illogical like some who seems to blame the turn of events on rand. ron's personality is one in a million in america and probably unique to older, virtuous generations, you can't ignore that rand is an important force of this movement.

[AuH20]

I don't think many people know what Rand is pitted against. These 'people' don't fear anything but the projection of strength. It's like two alpha males that randomly run into each other in a jungle clearing. They are both going to do all in their power to visually intimidate each other before they finally battle. Rand is essentially warning the Clintons that he's not going to back down after they send their media minions after him.

[enhanced_deficit]

It's also not just against Hillary. Whenever a Democrat that is not Hillary says some "War on Women" nonsense, Rand can just ask: if you're so concerned about women, why do you take money from a sexual predator?

That would make a good question.

[Occam's Banana]

Even when it was fresh, none of this did anything to seriously damage the people Clinton supported or endorsed.

I have no idea why anyone imagines that it will be any different now that it's 15+ years stale ...

[AuH20]

Rand is doing the smart thing, he is too smart for a lot people to understand.

He's marking his territory. He's warned the Clinton machine if they embark on the War on Women meme, he's going to counter just as aggressively. Hillary especially is very sensitive to Bill's antics in that she is adamant that it is 'ancient history' or never happened. LOL She doesn't want more ignorant members of the younger generations to know anything about this.

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Oh...my...God.

I'm just in awe right now.

Smart move, dumb move, brilliant move, dangerous move - whatever - today, Senator Rand Paul takes his scrotum, swings that massive set of cojones up over his shoulders and onto the table, and picks a fight with the patron saint of the Democrat party.

It's about time someone said it. Bill Clinton is the definition of everything that makes a Democrat a Democrat. One set of rules for you, one set for me. Hillary is no different from Bill; this is a point that time has made abundantly clear. I say, bravo, Rand. $#@!in-a.

BRAVO

[AuH20]

Oh...my...God.

I'm just in awe right now.

Smart move, dumb move, brilliant move, dangerous move - whatever - today, Senator Rand Paul takes his scrotum, swings that massive set of cojones up over his shoulders and onto the table, and picks a fight with the patron saint of the Democrat party.

It's about time someone said it. Bill Clinton is the definition of everything that makes a Democrat a Democrat. One set of rules for you, one set for me. Hillary is no different from Bill; this is a point that time has made abundantly clear. I say, bravo, Rand. $#@!in-a.

BRAVO

Not many stare into the abyss and then smile back. And that's Rand Paul in this instance. Unpredictability breeds fear in your opponent.

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

I don't think many people know what Rand is pitted against. These 'people' don't fear anything but the projection of strength. It's like two alpha males that randomly run into each other in a jungle clearing. They are both going to do all in their power to visually intimidate each other before they finally battle. Rand is essentially warning the Clintons that he's not going to back down after they send their media minions after him.

...and it is in that arena, and very soon, that we will begin to see the "repercussions" of Rand's action. Also, it will be vindication for Rand, as the Clinton political machine always makes clear who it deems to be a threat.

[SilentBull]

Damn, I'm not sure I like this strategy. He's gonna piss off a lot of independents who have a positive opinion of Bill. Not sure what can be gained from bringing up such an old story.

[SilentBull]

Perhaps the tactic here is to show--and I mean really show--that he is willing to actually fight. And his real audience is big donors who, for once, see that Rand Paul is the real deal and perhaps the last chance for the republic?

Perhaps.

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Even when it was fresh, none of this did anything to seriously damage the people Clinton supported or endorsed.

I have no idea why anyone imagines that it will be any different now that it's 15+ years stale ...

You raise an interesting question, and I will propose an answer: social media, and the internet.

Back when this stuff was fresh, really the only one getting the word out was <shudder> Rush Limbaugh. Sure, there were the local drive time talkers, but was there even a FNC then? The DNC had a lock on all media in the 90s; print, tv, and radio. TIME and Newsweek were still "viable" news sources. Just because most of us here at RPF were internet-connected then, we don't represent the overwhelming majority of 'Murricans. Then, as now, most 'Murricans were more concerned with beer and NASCAR.

Now, their favorite beer and driver have a Facebook page, and a twitter.

If the political $#@! were to meet the fan, say, another Bill Clinton-esque scandal...oh, wait, I just remembered...Fast and Furious, Snowden, Solyndra, PRISM, and all the rest...

Nevermind. You're right. We're $#@!ed. Sorry. I thought I could answer your question, but I obviously cannot. One would certainly think that in this more connected world, word would spread, but as to whether or not anyone would give a $#@!, which is really the point you raise...I don't know, Occum. I sure wish they would.

[jllundqu]

RPF is pretty mixed about the whole thing, it would seem. Good move, bad move, old story, bad for hillary, yada yada yada

Well one thing is for sure.... it's a gamble. Let's see if it pays off.

[jj-]

Another thing is that it makes conservatives say "Yeah! Go, Rand!". See here, for example: http://hotair.com/headlines/archives...-bill-clinton/

[Dr.3D]

Even when it was fresh, none of this did anything to seriously damage the people Clinton supported or endorsed.

I have no idea why anyone imagines that it will be any different now that it's 15+ years stale ...

Wasn't that whole ordeal just a coverup for what was really important at the time?

As I recall, there was the Chinagate scandal that never saw the light of day. That was when China was funneling campaign contributions to the Clinton campaign in exchange for military secrets.


As you can see, they are pretty touchy about it.

The following video is long but explains a lot about it.

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Damn, I'm not sure I like this strategy. He's gonna piss off a lot of independents who have a positive opinion of Bill. Not sure what can be gained from bringing up such an old story.

...denuding the truth about the Clintons? It hurts Hillary, too, as she didn't divorce the sonufabitch. One key to defeating Hillary in 2016 would be to remind the public of all that baggage that the Clintons brought to the White House, and coming up with a good counterargument against the whole, "...but the economy was sooo good in the 90s! Let's bring that back," crap. A method that doesn't require the public to learn even the slightest bit about the economy...perhaps an END THE FED plank??

[Occam's Banana]

One would certainly think that in this more connected world, word would spread, but as to whether or not anyone would give a $#@!, which is really the point you raise...I don't know, Occum. I sure wish they would.

I wish they would, too. But I just don't see it happening. At best, it will only serve as red meat for people who already hate the Clintons. I doubt it will carry much weight with independents and others who are indifferent to Slick Willie's philandery - in fact, it may even turn them off.

So would this (dubious) "upside" be worth the "downside?" I don't think so. If Rand deploys this "guilt by association" tactic, he opens himself wide to the tables being turned - by being hammered for his association with his "quixotic racist kook" of a father. Of course, his enemies may very well resort to that tack regardless of what Rand does. But if he plays the "guilt by association" card himself, he'll lose sympathy - not to mention the moral high ground - with the aforementioned independents and fence-sitters. I just don't see the "payoff" (if there even is any) being worth it ...

This all may just be a tactic in the run-up to the 2014 elections. If so, he might be able to get away with it. But it would be wise not to push it any further than that.

[jj-]

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