Arnold Schwarzenegger is no Bill Clinton

Nick Gillespie says:
Regardless of whether it helps him or hurts him come October 7, this latest development creates a golden opportunity for hypocrisy on the part of a) Republicans who attacked Bill Clinton as unfit for office due to such behavior and b) Democrats who supported Bill Clinton but think Arnold is unfit for office due to such behavior.
(Hat tip to the InstaGuy)
Can a close parallel be drawn between Clinton and Schwarzenegger with regard to such behavior?

During the 1992 race, Clinton was a polarizing figure even before the Gennifer Flowers story broke. He had long associated with radical leftists. He avoided two draft induction notices (thus becoming the first President to receive a presidential pardon before entering the Oval Office). He ranked himself with other “fine people [who] have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military” in a letter written to Col. Eugene Holmes, who tells his tale here.
Flowers was just another scandal – well, actually two scandals. First, there’s Clinton’s affair with her. Second, there’s the allegation that in February 1990 he used his office to thwart official state procedures to redefine a position with the State of Arkansas with the intention that it would more closely match the resume of Flowers over that of state employee Charlitte Perry, who had also applied for the job. (What is it with Clinton and women with oddly-spelled names?) So the “first black president” allegedly gypped a black woman out of a job for the sake of his girlfriend. Supposedly, Clinton incriminated himself regarding this matter in a taped telephone call with Flowers; I am unable to fid a transcript to confirm this.
Rumors of Clinton sex scandals had been floating around Arkansas long before 1992. Two examples that would later surface nationally were the claim that he fathered a child with an underage girl (parodied in Joe Klein’s book Primary Colors) and Juanita Broaddrick’s rape allegations. In the Dateline interview aired after impeachment, she explained that she had refused to come forward in the past because she didn’t want to relive the trauma. She changed her mind when Ken Starr’s office approached her; fearing the legal repercussions of lying to a federal grand jury, she told all. “I just couldn’t hold it in any longer. I didn’t want [my] granddaughters and nieces, when they’re 21 years old to turn to me and say, ‘Why didn’t you tell what this man did to you?'”
Clinton is also accused of two rapes during his college days: Eileen Wellstone (named here) at Oxford in 1969, and an unnamed student at Yale in 1972.
Starr had been looking for evidence of a pattern of obstruction of justice directed against women who had made various allegations of sexual misconduct against Clinton. Broaddrick offered no such evidence, so Starr didn’t question her any further. Other women, including Kathleen Willey, Dolly Kyle Browning, and Sally Perdue, did claim to have been intimidated into silence by various means. Willey even experienced the kidnapping and killing of her pet cat. Coincidentally (?) several have been audited.
Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bill Clinton have been associated with a series of gropings; only the latter has been accused of adulterous flings and rapes. Clinton is charged with using extortion tactics to intimidate his former victims and paramours into silence; Schwarzenegger has been met with no such accusations. (Update: Arnold hasn’t been accused of violating state laws for a girlfriend’s benefit, either.) Clinton shows no sign of slowing down his sexual boorishness (except with regard to rape). By all appearances Schwarzenegger has cleaned up his act. If he has truly repented, nobody should hold his past against him.
So who’s it gonna be for governor – a guy who’s groped women in the past, or a guy who’s fiscally assaulted the entire freakin’ state in the past and present and will do so in the future?



  1. M. Scott Eiland

    My question to all of those who think Our Bill got a raw deal in L’Affaire Lewinsky:
    If on January 5th, 1998 the Washington Post had unearthed and published comprehensive and irrefutable proof that Clarence Thomas lied while testifying to Congress during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 1991 while defending himself against the charges of Anita Hill and her defenders, would you have called for his impeachment?

  2. Alan K. Henderson

    Perjury during a court case and during a confirmation process aren’t quite the same thing, but are serious issues each in their own way. The former thwarts due process’ last line of defense. The latter abuses the appointment process just as much as ballot-stuffing abuses the election process. It’s an even more serious matter with regard to Supreme Court justices, since they are appointed for life and are never held accountable for making unconstitutional rulings. No pass for an upheld perjury conviction under any circumstances.
    I haven’t seen BigFire state what the alleged Republicans-only rule is yet. I can only say what my rules are. First, Bill is accused of crimes, Arnold is not. Second, there’s evidence that Bill continues to be a groper and a slut, but no evidence that Arnold continues to be a groper. An offense of the past that has been acknowledged and whose practice has been abandoned is no longer a part of the character of that individual.

  3. erp

    Media’s response to Clinton’s well documented attacks on numerous women – ho hum.
    Media’s response when numerous reporters went out and searched for women, some of whom were affiliated with the unions, willing to come forward with vague accusations about Arnold — a feeding frenzy.
    I wouldn’t be surprised if because of this weekend’s slime marathon, Davis stays in power.
    I don’t know why, but that will sure make everybody on the left happy. Don’t they know if all the taxpaying citizens leave the state, there won’t be anyone left to support them in the life of luxury they’ve grown accustomed to.