“I think most women understand that they should not be held accountable for the behaviors of their husbands. And you know, frankly, it was a long time ago, and our country did very well under the leadership of Bill Clinton.”
—-Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo), on MSNBC, doing a lousy job rebutting Sen. Rand Paul’s recent statements accusing Democrats of hypocrisy by pursuing their lucrative and politically successful “war on women” attacks on Republicans while continuing to embrace the Clintons, ignoring Bill Clinton’s treatment of his wife, Monica Lewinsky, and women.
Sen McCaskill pulls me back in, damn her.
Curse anyone who reminds me of anything related to Godfather III, but there was Claire, turning me into Michael: “Just when I think I’m out, they puuull me back in!” I know I write about Bill Clinton too much; I have promised multiple times to enshrine him in the Ethics Alarms Ethics Hall of Eternal Contempt, but haven’t had time to build the damn thing. His sly, shameless, smirking, dishonesty and manipulations drive me crazy, almost as crazy as the way so many otherwise rational ethical people, especially women (oh, that Bill’s a charmer, like so many sociopaths), keep giving him pass after pass to keep on doing it.
When Sen. Rand Paul, whom I generally do not admire but who has his moments, recently turned a “Meet the Press” question about the “war on women” around and attacked the Democratic hypocrisy for making such a claim while defending and cheering on the likes of Bill Clinton, I enjoyed the jiu-jitsu, as Paul was right….but I didn’t mention it! I resisted! I was even about to write a post today criticizing Senator Paul, who has apparently embarked on a long-term anti-Clinton jihad (fine with me!), for saying that Clinton’s settlement with Paula Jones in 1999, in which he paid $850,000 to settle her claims of sexual harassment, was an admission of guilt, which is an unfair, legally ignorant statement embarrassing for a Senator. I even wrote the headline: Ethics Dunce: Sen Rand Paul. Then Sen. McCaskill has to respond with her display of virtuoso unethical nonsense, and—I’m Michael Corleone.
Her quote really is one for the ages…dishonest, insulting, loaded with rationalizations:
- “I think most women understand that they should not be held accountable for the behaviors of their husbands.” Do they also understand that when a wife is an active participant in enabling their husband’s behavior—like, say, Hillary?–lies and deceives for him—like, let me see…Hillary!—, assists in multiple cover-ups–a good example would be, hmmm..oh! Hillary!-–and then bases her career advancement entirely on that husband’s popularity that she bolstered by her efforts to protect him from the consequences of his actions—gee, who can we think of who did this? It’s on the tip of my tongue, I swear!–she should be held accountable?
- “And you know, frankly, it was a long time ago.” So, of course, it never happened. What about Bill Clinton’s conduct has changed? Do Democrats ever excuse Richard Nixon because “it was a long time ago.” Would Nixon be a good elder statesman spokesman for a party claiming that the other is against honest government because his misconduct was “a long time ago”? Is there a limit to how gullible and stupid our elected leaders think we are?
- “..and our country did very well under the leadership of Bill Clinton.” So the ends justify the means! No harm, no foul! A direct hit or a at least a grazing on rationalizations 3, 8, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 33, 34 and 38, and that doesn’t count disgusting Rationalization #42, the one that underlies all partisan forgiveness of Clinton, “Hillary’s Inoculation,” or “If he/she doesn’t care, why should anyone else?”
Of course, back in 2008 when McCaskill supported then Senator Obama over Hillary Clinton in part because of Bill conduct, she reasoned differently. But then, 2008 was “a long time ago,” right Senator?
Curse you.
________________________
Sources: Washington Times, NBC
Ethics Alarms 
“The country did very well under Clinton.”
This kind of language irks me. The United States has never been “under” any president. We elect a president to preside over one third of the Federal government every four years. We don’t have kings here, and the things that happen in America are not necessarily connected to who occupies that particular public service position.
Yeah, I know everybody talks like that, Democrats and Republicans. It still bugs me. It’s lazy.
Yay! Someone understands that!
Constitutionally, it’s not even that powerful a position in peacetime.
It’s more than “lazy”, it distracts people from paying attention to the local officials who affect their daily lives.
We don’t have kings here? I’m not so sure about that, at least from 2008. It seems we have a mad king who thinks he can interpret Federal law anyway he decides to.
And inexcusable from a Senator. Yes, McCaskill is a continuing embarrassment. She’s one of at least three awful Democratic Senators that the Tea Party allowed to get elected when any competent opponent would have prevailed, and it owes America an apology, and more, for inflicting them on us.
I don’t blame McCaskill. That she is corrupt, shameless, ignorant and useless has been known for a long time by anyone paying attention..
No, I blame the primary system, and the handful of morons in Missouri who turned out to give Todd Akin the nod in 2012.
No, I take that back. All the other people who DIDN’T show up – those people are worth blaming.
Hey, here’s an idea. Let’s repeal the 17th Amendment and let the Senate represent the collective interests of the the individual states, at least when it comes to legislative seats, the way the Founders intended.
The Founders didn’t foresee everything – same-sex marriage comes to mind – but boyoboy, did they understand how people fuck up.
I second the repeal of 17th!
By not blaming McCaskill, you are invoking The Julie Principle?
Arthur, this is not to agree or disagree with you on repealing the 17th Amendment: What would you say of requiring U.S. presidents to be elected by a vote of governors?
Hell no. Free the electoral college from winner take all, free the electoral college from legal repercussions of faithless electors. Increase # of representatives: I don’t care how unwieldy the House becomes, the closer to the people the Reps are the. the further from consolidated interests and collections of power they will be, and that can only be a good thing. Ditto on Senate appointment by the States again.
Bring back some Federalism. Quit having the “everything needs to be solved on the National level” mindset that a certain Party has foisted on us, and we wouldn’t be so damned torn or engrossed by who becomes President.
Good points, Tex. The entire concept of the senators being elected by the state legislatures was to free them from the popular passions and allow them to function (essentially) as ambassadors of their states to the national government. With the passage of the 17th Amendment, this essential factor in the system of checks and balances was lost on the altar of “democracy”.
Yet this is like wishing for the return of virgin brides, the milk man and old time radio. What’s the point?
“[R]eturn of virgin brides”?
There is an old church steeple, at Chesterton I think, that has been twisted by wood warping over the years; it has been like that for centuries. The old folk tale to account for it is that, once when the Devil was lurking in it, a virgin bride came in to get married, so he twisted it around to get a better look at the unaccustomed novelty. The story goes that the steeple will straighten up again the next time that happens.
Well Jack, they DID repeal Prohibition. And what’s wrong with virgin brides, milkmen and old fashioned radio, anyway? You know, I DO miss those milk deliveries!
Okay, thanks Tex. I guess in a moment of insanity, the notion of a chief executive being selected by lower level executives, given our ossified two-named, one-party system, seemed appealing. Simpler, too, than popular votes; large states’ effective disenfranchisement of “flyover country” states’ voters; the Electoral College; skewing by urban centers, and voting by millions of ignorant, knee-jerking, ethics-impoverished sheeple.
Federalist #68 goes into great depth on it.
What gets me is that elected officials like McCaskill aren’t even good at spinning. She, Pelosi, Boxer, et al, are so incredibly inept in their rabbit punches on the truth that one marvels that anyone could take a word of theirs’ seriously for even a moment. Yet, their mouthings go unchallenged on the talking heads shows and are even repeated with a straight face. Have we, as a nation, actually become that stupid? Or is it the abysmal ignorance of the poorly educated that now stand as monuments to our failed schools? Or is it just that there are so many who don’t look beyond a vote for someone who will deliver unto them free goodies from someone else’s back pocket? All of the above in combination?? Whatever it is, it’s only a matter of time before the condition that allows these loons of the legislatures to thrive will likewise bring about the ruination of those who work for a living and dare to think for themselves.
“‘Twas in another country, and besides, the wench is dead.” – “The Jew of Malta”, Christopher Marlowe (quoting from memory).