The left is some piece of work. The most charitable thing you can say about our liberal friends is that their principles are always, er, flexible when it come to balancing notions of right and wrong against the need to serve the agenda. If pragmatism means I'll look the other way to keep my teammate on the field, these guys would win the pragmatism World Series in a four-game sweep every year.
Take, oh, say, rape. Especially when committed by a powerful white male against a woman who is subordinate to him. That would seem to check every conceivable box on the liberal outrage checklist, would it not?
But maybe the rapist is married to the current Democratic presidential nominee. And maybe it's been suggested that said nominee helped enable the rapist's bad behavior. Still an intractable problem? Not at all! Let's check in with left-wing columnist Rebecca Schoenkopf, who professes in a Wonkette column to believe Juanita Broaddrick's story about Bill Clinton raping her. But hey, is it really such a big deal? Not to Rebecca:
“Rape is about power, not sex.” For those for whom it’s about power, those are the serial rapist guys, and they hate women and want to punish us. But I don’t think that’s in every case. I think good men can rape, and be sorry, and not do it again. This is very bad feminism.
While I (sort of? am leaning toward?) believe Juanita Broaddrick, her characterization of Hillary Clinton sounds irrational, maybe induced from PTSD:
Soon after, Broaddrick says, she ran into Hillary Clinton at a political rally Broaddrick had promised friends she would attend. Hillary shook her hand and thanked her for everything she had done for Bill. To Broaddrick, the gesture felt like a threat to stay silent. As attorney general and later governor, Bill Clinton was “the main person that regulated my business and my income,” Broaddrick said. “After she said what she did to me, I just thought, I will keep quiet.”
There is simply no reason Hillary Clinton would have known jackshit about it; Bill Clinton was always lying to her, and she loved him, and she kept believing him when it was long past silly to do so. “Honey, I raped that nice lady” isn’t a thing he would have opened up to her about, and “thanks so much for the campaigning you did for my husband” just doesn’t sound like a threat in any possible universe.
Just because Broaddrick seems irrational about Hillary Clinton’s response doesn’t make her irrational about the rest.
To sum up, I think Bill Clinton could very well have raped Juanita Broaddrick; that it doesn’t make him an evil man, or irredeemable (I’m Catholic; we’re all forgiven, if we’re sorry, and Broaddrick says Bill Clinton personally called her up to apologize). It doesn’t even necessarily make him a bad feminist — you know, later, once he stops doing that.
Got that? Rape is about power and not sex, liberals have been telling us for generations (for the most part correctly, I'd say). But you know. Sometimes a good guy's just got to get some action, and the only thing available is inconveniently unwilling. He's horny! So he rapes her. Doesn't make him a bad guy. He's sorry. Why can't you clods let it go already?
Support Canada Free Press
These are seriously the kinds of intellectual and moral contortions the left is willing to go through in order to prevent this incident from having any negative impact whatsoever on Hillary's campaign.
And it reveals something you really need to understand about the left: They really don't care about any of the issues they yammer on about, except insofar as these issues assist them electorally. Take voter ID requirements. They don't care one way or the other except for the fact that more Democratic voters lack ID. Or welfare. They don't really care about the poor except to the extent that making people wards of the state will make them loyal to the party of big government.
And so it is with sexual assault. If going on about rape and sexual assault can help stir the passion of voters against the white male patricarchal society, then rape is the worst thing on the face of the Earth. But let Bill Clinton become the rapist, and then, hey, is it really so bad?
The answer is, yes, of course it's that bad. No matter who does it. A man who's treated women the way Bill Clinton has should never have been trusted with the power of the presidency. The wife who assisted him in getting away with it because of her own political ambitions should not be trusted with that power either.
Unless all you care about is agenda, and you're pretty confident the one they'll serve is the one you favor. In that case, all right and wrong are relative and utilitarian.
Today's left. If you're really so sure Donald Trump is an unacceptable option for the presidency, I'd suggest you get to know the people you're prepared to put in office instead of him.
The left is some piece of work. The most charitable thing you can say about our liberal friends is that their principles are always, er, flexible when it come to balancing notions of right and wrong against the need to serve the agenda. If pragmatism means I'll look the other way to keep my teammate on the field, these guys would win the pragmatism World Series in a four-game sweep every year.
Take, oh, say, rape. Especially when committed by a powerful white male against a woman who is subordinate to him. That would seem to check every conceivable box on the liberal outrage checklist, would it not?
