They said Clinton would teach our children bad morals.

[rwork]

Now we have a governor who was involved in a "gang bang," has groped( so far) 15 women,has said he admires Hitler and I guess the "gropenator" action doll is on its way. The republicans are loving Arnold and * is calling to congradulate him. Watch out a sign post ahead.

[Bandit]

1. I guess they were right.

If Californians had morals they wouldn't have voted for Ah-nold. It must be Clinton's fault.

[HitmanLV]

3. whether we like it or not

The Clinton era lowered the bar for personal behavior. Arnold's past, in the eyes of most folks, clearly passes that low standard.

[ComerPerro]

4. That's a load of crap

Lowered the bar, my ass.

That is pathetic.

Clinton didn't "lower the bar" for the standards of morality and decency.
Its just that Republicans only believe in it when it suits them.

[HitmanLV]

7. It's not just republicans...

What I meant was the Clinton era desensitized a lot of people to a lot of these issues. That much is obvious - on the road to the White House in the 84, Gary Hart was derailed because of sexual innuendo and some monkey business. It ran him out of the race.

Similar innuendo didn't derail Clinton only 8 years later.

Similar innuendo didn't derail Arnold only 11 years after that.

The watershed in this is the Clinton era. Americans don't care about it as much anymore. If that's good or bad, hard to say. You win some, you lose some.

[Catherine Vincent]

5. What horseshit.

[HitmanLV]

8. Not a knock on clinton....

...but a statement that the political climate has changed since his presidency. What was once a career killer is now not as much a big deal.

Things chain. He was the watershed, for better or worse.

You win some, you lose some.

[Bandit]

6. I was being quite sarcastic which apparently was lost on you

It is a ridiculous assumption that you make that Clinton is responsible for SEX. I think people participated in sex a month or two before Clinton got a hummer. Are you brain dead?

[HitmanLV]

9. I didn't suggest Clinton was responsible for sex....

...and I don't know why you thought I did.

Without question his era desensitized the electorate to sex scandals. What was a political disaster in 1982 was not a disaster in 1992. By 2000, it was all of the table.

I say this with no regard to whether this is good or bad, but just that it is true.

[laylah]

17. With all due respect......

what planet are you from? Lying about a question concerning consensual sex between two adults and gang rape, unwarranted groping, raping a woman and then telling her not to tell anyone because nobody would believe her anyway.....the list goes on and on......is COMPLETELY different! While I never did condone President Clinton's behavior, THAT was a witch hunt. How those hypocritical bastards in California can look themselves in the eye is beyond me. No, President Clinton did NOT lower the bar....numerous Republicans before him, and since, have done that job quite well! :mad:

Jenn

[HitmanLV]

18. why do you preface your remark with 'with all due respect'

...when you show me very little respect in your post? I wasn't rude to you, why are you deriding me? disagree if you wish, but you don't have to question what planet I am on.

We both know I'm from earth.

The truth is, Clinton scandals too included unwarranted groping (as opposed to 'warranted groping,' I suppose) - Katherine Wiley for example has quite a groping story to tell, and she told it. Nobody cared.

As for rape, there was a Clinton rape scandal, too - Juannita Brodderick claimed Clinton forced sex on her and roughed her up. She told her story. Nobody cared.

Both stories got mainstream media coverage. I don't believe either story, but the scandals in that era DID help lower the bar. I didn't mean to suggest Clinton personally did, but the results can't be denied.

The truth is, the american public doesn't look at anything you listed (for either Clinton or Arnold) as disqualifying for holding elected office. We can agree or disagree on whether this is good or bad, that's entirely fair, but as I said in other posts on this thread, what was a career killer politically in 1983 was no biggie in 1993 (Clinton era as the watershed), and now in 2003, we can't turn the clock back when the natural continuation of that mentality doesn't favor our side.

Don't be mad. Just work on fixing things.

[laylah]

21. OK

my apologies.....however, people DID care about Wiley and Brodderick until it became obvious they were just more of Klayman's and Mellon-Scaife's pawns. The ones that don't care now are the same one's who were yelling about President Clinton, 24/7, for over 8 years.

I do not believe that the "scandals" of Pres. Clinton's tenure lowered the bar, I believe that the Republicans are once again showing their hypocritical spots. It is now one of "theirs" being focused upon; therefore, Arnold's "shenannigans" were just "youthful indescretions". Kind of like Bob Barr and the "good senator" from Chicago, Henry Hyde, to name just a couple.

Jenn

Edit: added Hyde's name

[arcane1]

2. now all of Arnold's behavior is acceptible, per the CLinton standard

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=265084#265278

[cap]

12. no, as per the Republican hype

created by hypocrites who were doing the same thing Clinton did...

we have lowered the bar to include truly, gross unwanted behavior that borders on criminal conduct.

So we will indict AF academy cadets for doing the same thing as Arnold, kick them out of the military and make them lose their scholarships.

[HitmanLV]

19. it's not hypocritical....

Basically, in the Clinton era, the conventional wisdom was to excuse his personal behavior as not relevant to his ability to effectively lead.

The Republicans at the time disagreed. We told them they we wrong, and we won that debate handily.

Now in this election our side is not the beneficiary of the trend II didn't see that one coming!). The debate was done and it's over. We told the Republicans they were wrong for thinking the way they did, and we won.

We lost the moral highground to change the position. And now, they work with the political landscape we helped create. We rewrote the rules, and now they are playing by them.

No one is a hypocrite here. This is political reality. Gary Hart wishes he ran in 1992, 1996, or 2000, instead of 1984!

You win some, and you lose some.

[Piperay]

10. 'What will we tell the children'...

that is the line they always gave when referring to Clinton's penis, well, WHAT DO WE TELL THE CHILDREN now????? How come what Clinton did was immoral and indecent but what the groper did is ignored by them, such hypocrites they are. :argh:

[calm_blue_ocean]

13. Question for Piperay

Do you think what Clinton did was immoral and indecent?

[Piperay]

15. Actually no, I don't... I think

it was increduably stupid and Clinton being so dumb as to not be careful makes me mad. What Clinton did should have been between him and his wife, what arnie did though was basically assault. I don't understand how the ones who pointed fingers at Clinton can shrug off arnie's assaulting women.


EDIT: spelling

[calm_blue_ocean]

16. I disagree (not about Arnold)

I think Clinton's employer / employee relationship with Lewinsky and Jones (if that one is true) turn those incidents into something immoral.

[Ignis]

11. 'Youthful indiscretions'

The lesson that any reasonably bright child will take from the recent Republican attempts to attack Clinton out of one side of their mouths while absolving Bush/Arnold out of the other is the following:

1. Behave any way you like, no matter how abhorent, amoral, or libertine.
2. When you run for public office, write off all of your past behaviour as 'youthful indiscretions'.
3. Do the above even when the past in question is ~3 years ago.

Now that's a lesson, alright.

[Mari333]

14. There has been an abusive trend towards women in the US

ever since I was born....it tooks years of marching in the early 70s to make some changes, but it continues to this day with a lot of disgruntled adolescents hiding behind their version of abuse via religion and out and out mean ness..the worst culprits are the most covert...take, for example, the PromiseKeeper bunch, moaning and groaning about how much they love their wives as long as they can run the show at home..and the politicians who secretly pass laws taking rights away from women left and right, the ASScroft crowd, the crowd of men who consistently vote for *Bush and his lowbrow childish ilk of insecure morons, whose disdain of maturity and barbaric warmongering routinely destroy the world and this country , making it not only unsafe for women and other men, but killing our kids for profit in illegal wars and invasions..
as for women who allow this to continue, I am appalled..We are watching everything we worked for go into the toilet..
The USA is NOT one of the better countries for women or for decent men to live in...as Arnold's brownshirts roughed up people in his crowd the other day..these are the kinds of bullies who run the show in this country....thugs and insecure bastards. All the way up to the White House. They bully their way , like 12 yr olds, to win and scream if they dont get their way.

[MaidinVermont]

20. There's nothing wrong with oral gradification

It's just not considered sex anymore.

[Ferretherder]

22. UH, by whom is it not considered 'sex' anymore?

Just curious.

Oh, and welcome to DU.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

23. I do have a question though...

and hope it is not misinterpreted, but it probably will be.

Two things :

1) How is it that cheating on your wife by receiving a hummer at work NOT considered immoral? Pipe_ray(I believe) said that it was not in an above post...how? I agree that it is between them and that the affront is to Hillary only and it is up to her to forgive him, but that is her perogative...if she had to forgive him, wasn't there something wrong with it?

2) Why is it that when Arnold is charged with immoral and illegal behavior with little or not coroborating (sp?) evidence, it is accepted by many as fact, and yet, when Bill, accused of many if not ALL of the same things with a similar lack of evidence is assumed to be innocent? I do not understand how that can be so unless it is merely a fundamental hipocrisy of those who believe one and not the other. I personally don't believe that either of them did 90% of what is attributed to them...at least until such time as some sort of evidence is forthcoming.

Sorry, I just really don't understand the difference. Why is Arnie guilty just by accusation? Why does Bill, who admitted some of what happened (as Arnie has) get a pass? If you think ONE of them guilty, then aren't both? If you think ONE is innocent, aren't both?

How is this? If I am missing some facts that would help me in this situation, PLEASE educate me. I have formed opinions on this matter, but opinions can and should be altered by contradictory facts!

Thanks!
TheProdigal