PAUL: You know, I mean the Democrats, one of their big issues is they've concocted and said Republicans are committing a War on Women. One of the workplace laws and rules that I think are 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. 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, it should be something 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 he's, “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. GREGORY: And, but it should be an issue… PAUL: But it is a factor in judging Bill Clinton in history. GREGORY: Right, but is it something Hillary Clinton should be judged on if she were a candidate in 2016? PAUL: No, I'm not saying that. This is with regard to the Clintons, and sometimes it's hard to separate one from the other. 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. We wouldn't be, you know, if there were someone in my community who did that, they would be socially, we would disassociate from somebody who would take advantage of a young woman in the workplace. Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...dent-clinton-pass-preying-young#ixzz2rWwyaLs2
Interesting opening round. maybe even brilliant. Paul is letting Rs know he is not going to be beaten like a loser by the press the way McCain and Romney were. I think Rand Paul is showing the republicans how to compete against Hillary. If she is the center of their universe . She is the center of an alternate universe which was ruled by a predator. Rand Paul did not have to say it. But, it does not take much to tie Hillary to awareness of the situation with Bill and his bimbo alerts. The next question did hillary's passivity make here complicit? stupid? ambitious? anti- woman? a victim? Where was she when Bill got the 2 am booty call? Rand Paul is telling us he will push back and fight to be president.
He's going to have to be awfully careful in how he approaches this with Hillary. All it takes is for him to give her the victim card and the left will rally around her while crying to the press about Paul the bully.
this is my opinion... obviously... but I can stand to see another R not defend himself or go after the obvious issues. It has to be dealt with. It can not be avoided. Yes we "feel her pain". But... at some point did she not care about the other women? Let the media explain that... Let them try and excuse her behavior with an emotionally battered spouse defense. And agree. Yeah maybe your right. So she was unfit and therefore not complicit.
They will do that with any criticism of her, just as obama uses the race card to deflect criticism. We tried taking the happy face approach, and all it got us was two blown elections. The first critieria for a republican presidential candidate has to be that he is prepared to do whatever is necessary to win. That means going after Hillary hard. Expose her warehouse full of skeletons from Arkansas and the WH and her terrible record as Secretary of State.
exactly... we know what pussyfooting around got McCain and Romney. Rand Paul is sharp as a tack to bring this up now. for those thinking I am not being sensitive... it is a real word. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pussyfoot
Rand Paul could do with some fine-tuning: ******************************************************************************************* What’s really interesting about Rand Paul’s argument, though, is that the federal law that relates to the behavior he condemns is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which might ring a bell for Paul’s followers. In a 2010 interview with Rachel Maddow, Paul said “There are ten different titles to the Civil Rights Act and nine of ten deal with public institutions and one that deals with private institutions and had I been around I would have tried to modify that. When you support nine of ten things in a good piece of legislation do you vote for it or against it and sometimes those are difficult situations.” He was referring to Title II, which covers discrimination in public accommodations, but his philosophy, that the free market should guide the actions of private businesses, would seem to apply to Title VII, as well, at least as it relates to private employers. That puts him in the clear where Bill Clinton is concerned, but not with most of the other working women in America. It’s possible that when he was being interviewed by Maddow, he simply forgot about Title VII, but his remarks on Sunday were entirely compatible with that view. While imagining such an offense in his own state, Paul didn’t describe any possible legal remedies, but rather, that there would be frowning and dissociating. Gregory ended their interview on that note, but it would be worthwhile for Sen. Paul’s next interviewer to ask him his views on Title VII, which only evolved to cover sexual harassment in the late 70s, or on other laws protecting women, such as the Violence Against Women Act, which he voted against. If Senator Paul thinks that we should prevent sexual harassment through a combination of frowning and rescinded dinner party invitations, then he should say so. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/christop...-on-women-because-hillary-kinda-got-a-blow-j/