Politics, et Cetera
A publication from The Political Forum, LLC
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
They Said It:
Ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker consciously, it is true, but with a false consciousness. The real motive forces impelling him remain unknown to him; otherwise it simply would not be an ideological process. Hence he imagines false or seeming motive forces. Because it is a process of thought he derives its form as well as its content from pure thought, either his own or that of his predecessors. He works with mere thought material, which he accepts without examination as the product of thought, and does not investigate further for a more remote source independent of thought; indeed this is a matter of course to him, because, as all action is mediated by thought, it appears to him to be ultimately based upon thought.
The historical ideologist (historical is here simply meant to comprise the political, juridical, philosophical, theological – in short, all the spheres belonging to society and not only to nature) thus possesses in every sphere of science material which has formed itself independently out of the thought of previous generations and has gone through its own independent course of development in the brains of these successive generations. True, external facts belonging to one or another sphere may have exercised a codetermining influence on this development, but the tacit presupposition is that these facts themselves are also only the fruits of a process of thought, and so we still remain within that realm of mere thought, which apparently has successfully digested even the hardest facts.
It is above all this semblance of an independent history of state constitutions, of systems of law, of ideological conceptions in every separate domain that dazzles most people. If Luther and Calvin “overcome” the official Catholic religion or Hegel “overcomes” Fichte and Kant or Rousseau with his republican Contrat social indirectly “overcomes” the constitutional Montesquieu, this is a process which remains within theology, philosophy or political science, represents a stage in the history of these particular spheres of thought and never passes beyond the sphere of thought. And since the bourgeois illusion of the eternity and finality of capitalist production has been added as well, even the overcoming of the mercantilists by the physiocrats and Adam Smith is accounted as a sheer victory of thought; not as the reflection in thought of changed economic facts but as the finally achieved correct understanding of actual conditions subsisting always and everywhere – in fact, if Richard Coeur-de-Lion and Philip Augustus had introduced free trade instead of getting mixed up in the crusades we should have been spared five hundred years of misery and stupidity.
Friedrich Engels, “Letter to Franz Mehring,” July 14, 1893.
THE WAR ON WOMEN, REDUX.
Do any of you remember a guy named Mike Huckabee? This is important, we think, because Huckabee has been the cause of much consternation among our political class over the last several days. As it turns out, this Huckabee guy – whoever he is – hates women. And worse than that, he openly and unabashedly thinks that women should be treated badly by men. Huckabee’s pronouncements, heinous as they are, have roiled the political waters, upsetting everyone from elected Democrats to feminist authors and columnists to the normally staid conservative journalist and Harvard-trained psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer, who on Friday chided Huckabee, asking, “For God’s sake, why do you have to talk about that?”
As it turns out, this Huckabee fellow is a former governor of Arkansas. But it’s not what you’re thinking! He is NOT the former governor of Arkansas who cheated on his wife while governor. He is not the former governor of Arkansas who made his wife appear on national television with him to declare that those infidelity “problems” were behind them. He is not the former governor of Arkansas who then proceeded to become the President of these here United States. He is not the former governor of Arkansas who, while president, had an affair with an intern roughly his own daughter’s age and then sent his wife out (again!) to blame the whole thing on a vast right-wing conspiracy. He is not the former governor of Arkansas who purportedly groped the widow of an old friend as she begged for help. He is not the former governor of Arkansas who lost his law license because he perjured himself in front of a federal grand jury. Nope. Mike Huckabee is NOT that guy.
THAT guy is revered by the media and by Democrats everywhere and lauded as a national treasure. In three years, THAT guy will – Gaia willing! – be welcomed lovingly back to the White House as the world’s greatest and the nation’s first, male presidential spouse. THAT guy commands millions of dollars per speech, used his popularity to help the current president win re-election, and has enough pull among the denizens of the political Left to get his otherwise unremarkable wife elected Senator, named Secretary of State, and consecrated as the president-in-waiting. THAT guy is awesome!
Mike Huckabee, by contrast, is loathsome. He’s a misogynistic toad. He is, as the alleged comedienne Sarah Silverman put it the other day, “gross.” Mike Huckabee, in case you hadn’t figured it out, is a Republican. And that, in turn, explains everything.
You see, Mike Huckabee is a man who hasn’t held office since 2007. He’s a man who hasn’t even run for office since 2008. And when he did last run for office – in the Republican presidential primary – he finished third, behind such powerhouse national figures as John McCain and Mitt Romney. Mike Huckabee is, in short, about as relevant to national politics today as is . . . well . . . John Edwards, the guy who finished third in the Democratic primary that same year and who, by the way, then showed the world how he feels about women by revealing that he had fathered a child with a campaign videographer, even as his wife of 33 years was dying of cancer.
Nevertheless, Mike Huckabee has, over the last week, become the face of the Republican Party and, as such, the face of everything that is wrong with the Republican Party. Mike Huckabee is a bad, bad man. And he is also, sadly, a portent of bad, bad things to come.
On the off chance you haven’t yet heard, late last week Mike Huckabee attended a Republican National Committee meeting and spoke the following words, which, naturally, mark him as an irredeemable misogynist:
[The Republican Party] stands for the recognition of the equality of women and the capacity of women. That’s not a war on them, it’s a war for them. And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control, because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government, then so be it. Let’s take that discussion all across America, because women are far more than Democrats have made them to be. And women across America have to stand up and say, “Enough of that nonsense.”
The reaction to Huckabee’s comments was as swift as it was stupid. The mainstream press ran with the story immediately, insisting that this has-been/never-was had once again let the proverbial cat out of the bag, as much as admitting that Republicans not only hate women but think that they are far too sexually wily for their own good. National Review’s Charles Cooke captured the media’s hysteria as follows:
[S]ince [the comments] were first leaked out onto the Internet yesterday afternoon, they have provoked the ever-open-minded and impartial truth-seekers of the Washington press corps into a veritable paroxysm. No sooner had the word “libido” left Huckabee’s lips than all context, judgment, and verisimilitude were hastily defenestrated; Huckabee, who has not held public office since 2007, had been turned into the de facto spokesman for the entire Republican party; and the word had gone out across the Kingdom that there was a new monster at the gates.
“At RNC meeting @MikeHuckabee just said fed govt shouldn’t help w who can’t control their libido w birth control,” CNN’s Dana Bash wrote breathlessly on Twitter, inspiring a predictable pile-on. A few minutes later, NBC’s Kasie Hunt added her own, explosive, account of things: “Huckabee: Women ‘helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing them . . . birth control because they cannot control their libido.’” And that, as usual, was that.
As anyone with even remedial reading skills could tell you, what the breathless reporters reported was inaccurate, to say the least. Indeed, their claims were precisely backward. What Huckabee said is that the Democrats demean women with their “war on women” shtick and that Republicans should be willing to challenge them for their shallow and patronizing rhetoric. The bit about Huckabee attacking women and their libidos was pure fiction. Or as Cooke put it, “so completely and utterly different are what Huckabee said and what Bash and Hunt reported that it is hard for even the most generous of observers to grasp how they reached their peculiar characterizations in the first instance. Were they trying to mislead?”
Obviously, Cooke’s last question is rhetorical. And who cares anyway? Their intent is irrelevant. Either way, they provided others in the media and the Democrats (but we repeat ourselves!) yet another opportunity to tie the GOP to “hurtful” and insensitive comments about women. Even as most in the media reported Huckabee’s comments accurately, they nevertheless took advantage of the chance they’d been given to reinforce the tried and true “war on women” meme. Sadly, this will not be the last such chance they’ll be given, nor the last time they’ll do whatever they can to reinforce this attack.
Over the next . . . oh, say . . . nine months – which is to say the entire period between now and the mid-term elections in November – the Democrats and their media helpers will do nothing except shriek about the horrors of Republicanism. They will insist that Republicans want women to “know their place” and to be obedient and submissive. They will feign shock and disgust. They will do their damnedest to inject this contrived shock and disgust into every political discussion. In short, if you thought the “war on women” business grew tiresome last time around, then you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. They are, as Al Pacino might say, just gettin’ warmed up!
Last week, on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out a blast email that seemed to accuse Republicans of introducing legislation that would make women submit to IRS audits if they had abortions. It’s actually hard to tell what DCCC meant, in truth, since they didn’t bother to explain what they meant. They just screeched:
On this 41st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the fight over women’s health care rights is far from over . . .
The “Republican Rape Audits” bill is set to hit the House floor next week. It could force rape survivors to face “abortion audits” from the IRS. Oh, and did we mention that it was introduced by an all-male panel?
The bill in question is actually called the “No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act,” and it does precisely what its title suggests, namely deny federal funds for most abortion procedures. Nowhere in the bill does anyone suggest that women who have abortions should be subjected to audits. Nowhere does anyone suggest that women should be explicitly denied health insurance coverage for abortion. Nowhere does anyone propose to do anything the DCCC accuses Republicans of doing.
What the bill does, however, is provide an exception for cases of rape and incest. All last election cycle, Democrats insisted that Republicans were stupid and hard-hearted for not understanding the trauma that could be caused by denying women who had been raped access to abortion. And in truth, some Republicans (yes, Todd Akin, we’re looking at you!) were patently stupid and offensive on the issue. So this time around, Republicans provided an exception. And this is the thanks they get. RAPE AUDITS! HIDE THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN! (If you can find any children, that is . . . )
Roughly a decade ago, as George W. Bush was running for a second term, Democrats and the mainstream press expended a great deal of energy insisting that the Republicans were completely out of ideas and that they were, as a result, sowing social discord in order to maintain their position of power. Having no clue how to govern, no idea how to create jobs or stimulate the economy, and no hope of salvaging their signature issue – in this case, the War on Terror – the Republicans, led by George Bush and his evil political operatives, set about to stir up animosity on social issues and thereby to energize their angry, stupid electoral base. EJ Dionne, the Washington Post’s purveyor of soft-Leftist conventional wisdom, whined that “Bush and Republican leaders” used “the gay-marriage issue shamelessly in the 2004 campaign.” In a July, 2004 piece for Salon, Mary Jacoby explained how the Left understood the evil brilliance of the “Bush-Rove” strategy:
Winning the souls, or at least the votes, of conservative evangelical Christians is central to the Republican Party strategy under President Bush . . . .
With Democrats revved up to defeat Bush, independents leaning toward Democrat John Kerry, moderate Republicans turning away from the party and many gay Republicans having left it altogether, it’s now more important than ever for the White House to get its conservative evangelical voter base to the polls. And if Republicans can’t change the law preventing churches from devoting tax-exempt resources to partisan politics, the Bush-Cheney reelection effort appears ready to stretch the rules as far as possible . . . .
The White House’s strategy for winning the votes of evangelicals has several components. It includes the faith-based initiative to spread public money to religious charities. And it includes controversial moves such as the recess judicial appointment of a fundamentalist Roman Catholic, William Pryor, to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals after Democrats had blocked his nomination. Pryor is the former Alabama attorney general and strongly antiabortion. (This conflict generated the bizarre spectacle of conservative Protestant Republicans attacking liberal Catholic Democrats on the Judiciary Committee for somehow discriminating against Pryor because he’s Catholic.) But the centerpiece of the Republican strategy is the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
The amendment is the kind of wedge social issue that Republicans have exploited profitably in the past, and Rove appears to have made careful political calculations.
Inherent in the belief in this strategy is the presumption that Republican voters are stupid. They don’t know what they really want. They don’t know what is in their best interests. And they don’t realize that the GOP has no intention whatsoever of doing anything to benefit them at all. All they know is that they don’t like the Leftist social agenda – gay marriage and abortion, namely – and they vote on those issues alone, foolishly forsaking their true interests for the mirage of social stability, i.e. social backwardness.
As you may recall, Thomas Frank, a journalist and author who was fortunate enough to grow up in Johnson County and blessed to attend one of the finest institutions of higher education in the world (the University of Kansas), nevertheless blasted his fellow Kansans for not understanding their true interests and thus voting for Republicans. Frank’s 2004 book, What’s the Matter with Kansas became an instant classic among journalists and other leftists, largely because it confirmed their own prejudices, which is that Republican voters are dumb and have no idea what they are doing. Frank put it this way:
This derangement is the signature expression of the Great Backlash, a style of conservatism that first came snarling onto the national stage in response to the partying and protests of the late sixties. While earlier forms of conservatism emphasized fiscal sobriety, the backlash mobilizes voters with explosive social issues — summoning public outrage over everything from busing to un-Christian art — which it then marries to pro-business economic policies. Cultural anger is marshaled to achieve economic ends. And it is these economic achievements — not the forgettable skirmishes of the never-ending culture wars — that are the movement’s greatest monuments. The backlash is what has made possible the international free-market consensus of recent years, with all the privatization, deregulation, and de-unionization that are its components. Backlash ensures that Republicans will continue to be returned to office even when their free-market miracles fail and their libertarian schemes don’t deliver and their “New Economy” collapses. It makes possible the police pushers’ fantasies of “globalization” and a free-trade empire that are foisted upon the rest of the world with such self-assurance. Because some artist decides to shock the hicks by dunking Jesus in urine, the entire planet must remake itself along the lines preferred by the Republican Party, U.S.A.
The Great Backlash has made the laissez-faire revival possible, but this does not mean that it speak to us in the manner of the capitalists of old, invoking the divine right of money or demanding that the lowly learn their place in the great chain of being. On the contrary; the backlash imagines itself as a foe of the elite, as the voice of the unfairly persecuted, as a righteous protest of the people on history’s receiving end. That its champions today control all three branches of government matters not a whit. That its greatest beneficiaries are the wealthiest people on the planet does not give it pause. . . . Old-fashioned values may count when conservatives appear on the stump, but once conservatives are in office the only old-fashioned situation they care to revive is an economic regimen of low wages and lax regulations. Over the last three decades they have smashed the welfare state, reduced the tax burden on corporations and the wealthy, and generally facilitated the country’s return to a nineteenth-century pattern of wealth distribution. Thus the primary contradiction of the backlash: it is a working-class movement that has done incalculable, historic harm to working class people.
The leaders of the backlash may talk Christ, but they walk corporate. Values may “matter most” to voters, but they always take a backseat to the needs of money once the elections are won. This is a basic earmark of the phenomenon, absolutely consistent across its decades-long history. Abortion is never halted. Affirmative action is never abolished. The culture industry is never forced to clean up its act . . . .
This is vexing for observers, and one might expect it to vex the movement’s true believers even more. Their grandstanding leaders never deliver, their fury mounts and mounts, and nevertheless they turn out every two years to return their right-wing heroes to office for a second, a third, a twentieth try. The trick never ages; the illusion never wears off.
Today, of course, the partisan roles are precisely reversed. The Democrats are in power and are looking to agitate their base in an attempt to stop an electoral bloodbath. It would be unfair for us to say that the Democrats are completely out of ideas. They’re not. They’re just out of ideas that have their genesis in the last half-century.
As things stand today, much of the Democratic base has been hit especially hard by the Obama presidency. The unemployment rate for teenagers is roughly 20%. The unemployment rate for recent college graduates (the “youth vote”) is double the national average. The underemployment rate for recent college grads is staggering, with an estimated 48% working jobs that don’t require a college degree, and more than a third of those (38%) working jobs that don’t require even a high school diploma. The unemployment rate among black men and women is nearly 12%, five points higher than the national average overall. And teen black unemployment is a staggering 35%. Roughly one in four young black men and women (ages 16 to 24) are without work, while one in six young Hispanics is likewise unemployed.
The president’s signature issue is, of course, falling apart, bit by bit, day by day. The American Left dreamed for a century about creating a “universal” health insurance plan, and it celebrated wildly upon the passage of Obamacare back in 2010. And yet, the uninsured, those who were supposed to be the principal target of the new law, are precisely the people being left out of the new health care regime. Obamacare has thus far been a disaster by almost any measure. But by the measure of the number of uninsured signed up, it has been epically disastrous. The inimitable Megan McArdle explains:
Somewhere between 65 percent to 90 percent of the 2.2 million folks who bought insurance on the exchanges through late December seem to be people who already had insurance. Some came to the exchanges when their policies got canceled; others came, voluntarily or not, from the employer market. But various sources suggest that the number of previously uninsured people who have so far bought policies on the exchanges is somewhere south of 750,000.
To put that number in perspective, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the exchanges would sign up 7 million people in the first year, roughly 2 million of them transitioning from other insurance plans and 5 million of them previously uninsured. If the Journal’s numbers are right, then by the end of December, the exchanges had signed up at least 1.45 million previously insured folks out of the 2 million who were projected to enroll by the end of May — roughly 75 percent of the projected total. But at most, they’ve signed up 15 percent of the uninsured that they were expecting to enroll. You’d expect the early numbers to be somewhat weighted toward the previously insured, who probably want to maintain continuous coverage. Still, this is a fairly wild skew, and it leaves us with a burning question: Where are the uninsured? Did hardly any of them want coverage beginning Jan. 1?
U.S. Census figures say that 45 million people go without insurance every year in this country. To be sure, some of those are undocumented immigrants, who are unlikely to show up at a government-run exchange; others are legal residents who may not be eligible for subsidies. But where are the rest? We just created a giant new entitlement to take care of these people. Why aren’t they showing up to take advantage of it?
In sum, then, we have an economy that is technically growing but is not yet providing much benefit to the lower and middle classes; a diverse group of people who voted for Obama and yet have been particularly hard-hit by the President’s policies; a health care reform that has not only not enrolled its target population but has also DISenrolled far more than it has enrolled altogether; and few solutions from the governing party about what to do about any of it. Honestly, think about it a minute. The Democrats have assured us all that the biggest economic issue of the age is income inequality, which they claim is illustrated in all of the bad numbers listed above. And their only proposed solution to this generational crisis is . . . drum roll, please . . . raising the minimum wage! Not only is this “solution” of dubious economic benefit, possibly costing jobs even as it marginally raises wages and even as its benefits trickle down to exceptionally few workers, but it is also a policy idea older than the President himself. The minimum wage is now 75 years old. It has been raised some 28 times. And somehow, economic utopia has still managed to escape us. How can that be?
More to the point, how do Democrats, so manifestly lacking in ideas about attracting voters, intend to turn out their base for November’s critical midterm? The answer, they believe, is easy. They’ll just steal a page from the Bush-Rove playbook and focus primarily, if not exclusively on social issues. What could possibly be better?
The catch here is that this strategy – such as it is – reveals far more about the Democrats than it does about their purported antagonists, the angry White men in the GOP. Recall that the Democrats’ perception of the 2004 election hinged on one critical idea: in order for the Republicans’ strategy to work, the targets of their shallow and simplistic plan – working- and middle-class whites – had to be stupid. They had to misunderstand their own economic needs and believe, somehow, that silly “cultural” issues were more important than their true economic best interests. To put it in Marxian terms, in order for Rove and Bush to win, the working class had to remain mired in its “false consciousness.”
Apply that same reasoning to the Democrats’ current strategy, and those plans suddenly appear particularly ugly. Let us be careful here – VERY careful. We’d hate for Dana Bash or Kasie Hunt to get the wrong idea:
The Democrats have no plans for addressing the domestic policy woes that plague most of the country and their “base” voters in particular. They have no plans – and no real desire even to consider any plans – to deal with the collapse of the international order and the growing threats of regional war in the Middle East and East Asia. Moreover, they are faced with a GOP that is both energized and is beginning, ever so slowly, to translate its grassroots energy into solid reform proposals. And in the face of all of this – or, more accurately BECAUSE of all of this – the Democrats have decided that their best, most pragmatic strategic option is try to push cultural issues, to convince their base voters that Republicans, if elected, will come to steal your lady parts!
What, exactly, does this say about the Democrats’ view of women?
Over the next several months, we will all be bombarded with the same message over and over (and over and over . . . .) Republicans are misogynistic pigs. They do not understand women, and they want women “back in their place.” Every time any conservative anywhere does or says anything or introduces a bill or, well, breathes heavily, the Democrats and their allies will pounce. The “culture wars” aren’t over, far from it. This time, though, the Left will be openly and unabashedly on the offensive, hoping desperately to force some Republican to say something stupid, thereby reinforcing Democratic voters’ worst fears and convincing them that not to vote is to decide consciously to hand over power to repressive reactionaries who want nothing more than turn back the clocks and to make their women mind.
Will this strategy work? That remains to be seen, obviously. But we doubt it.
For starters, we have a much higher opinion of women – even women who vote Democratic – than do the Democrats. And on the off chance that any reporters for CNN or NBC have managed to sneak passed our nearly impenetrable security, let us walk through this slowly: Democratic politicians appear to think that women are, to borrow a phrase from the Washington Post, “poor, undereducated, and easily led.” We, by contrast DO NOT think that. We think that the overwhelming majority of women in this country will see right through the Left’s desperation.
Of course, when it comes right down to it, the real key to this strategy is the Republicans. If the Republicans are dumb enough to engage the issue on the Democrats’ terms, then they will all but certainly screw it up. One moron like the supremely moronic Todd Akin could, should he loose his tongue, confirm for a great many people that the GOP is, in fact, a regressive party full of women-hating Neanderthals.
At the top of this piece, we had a little fun at the expense of Charles Krauthammer, whom we lumped in with the media hysterics. The truth of the matter, though, is that Krauthammer is right. There really was no need whatsoever for Mike Huckabee ever to mention women’s libidos, even in the context of criticizing the Democratic party’s obsession with those libidos. There is no way – as the media reaction demonstrated – for Huckabee to win that argument. Simply by discussing the subject, he lost. And if other Republicans follow suit, they too will lose the argument. And perhaps their party will lose the election.
If the Republicans really want to neutralize the Democrats’ strategy, they will follow the precedent set by their Republican predecessors during the Clinton presidency. As we have noted before in these pages, after taking the majority in 1994, the GOP consciously chose to avoid the appearance of attacking abortion in general, preferring to focus on very late-term or “partial birth” abortion. They knew that the public was overwhelmingly horrified by the details of partial birth abortions and would not object to the incremental change in the law that would begin with partial birth. And so they decided to frame the issue of abortion in terms of a ban on partial birth. And they won.
For the GOP to be similarly successful this time, its leaders will have to narrow the party’s focus again, consciously choosing to dedicate their efforts – and their communication – to the matter of limit late-term, i.e. post 20-week, abortions. To discuss anything else, to address any other issue with respect to the Democrats’ vision of “women’s health care,” would be to play the Democrats’ game and thus to run the risk of saying something either stupid or easily misinterpreted and manipulated.
Lest we be accused of advocating capitulation on the abortion issue, we cite here the wisdom of St. Thomas Aquinas, perhaps the most important and influential moral philosopher of the last millennium.
Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like. The purpose of human law is to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually. Wherefore it does not lay upon the multitude of imperfect men the burdens of those who are already virtuous, viz. that they should abstain from all evil. Otherwise these imperfect ones, being unable to bear such precepts, would break out into yet greater evils . . . .
Over the weekend, Senator Rand Paul rather deftly and effectively addressed the issues related to the “war on women” without giving his political opponents much of anything to use against him. Not that it stopped the media from waxing hysterical about the Senator’s “divisive” comments. But Paul’s big mistake, we think, was in trying to kill one of the Left’s sacred cows. Specifically, Paul screwed up when he said the following:
Well, you know, I mean the Democrats one of their big issues is they have concocted and says 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 twenty years old and an intern in his office. There is no excuse for that, and that is predatory behavior, and 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 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.
How dare he attack Bill Clinton? How dare he suggest that both Clinton’s actions and the Left’s sanction of them amounted to a betrayal of feminism and the true spirit of equality between the sexes? How dare he defend workplace sexual harassment law? Republicans aren’t allowed to do that! More to the point, as any schoolboy knows, when it comes to former governors of Arkansas, Bill Clinton isn’t the bad guy.
The ordained minister who has been happily married to his wife for 40 years on the other hand . . . .
Keep your eye on him!