We could be witnessing the beginning of the end of the Clinton empire, as evidenced by an editorial piece in The New York Times that called out former President Bill Clinton’s sexual exploits and questioned whether he deserved a harsher punishment at the time.
On Saturday, Douthat penned an editorial piece titled “What if Ken Starr Was Right?” for the New York Times that seemed to indicate that the end of the Clinton empire could very well be a reality in today’s climate.
If you’ll recall, Ken Starr was the independent counsel appointed to investigate the former president’s misdeeds in regard to the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals. He accused Clinton of using his political power to entice women, and then lie about encounters with them and, if need be, bully his victims to keep them quiet.
In light of the dozens of unearthed sexual allegations from decades ago, author Ross Douthat considered if Clinton could ever survive in today’s environment.
Douthat wrote that in the 1990s, the prevailing thought was that Clinton’s affairs were his business, and his sexual relationship with his young intern Monica Lewinsky should never have jeopardized his presidency.
But that narrative could never survive the current outrage we have recently witnessed about sexual misconduct claims.
And Douthat is wondering if it ever should have.
“(L)iberals might be willing to concede that the Lewinsky affair was a pretty big deal morally, a clear abuse of sexual power, for which Clinton probably should have been pressured to resign,” he wrote.
Douthat said that after rereading about Clinton’s past, he had to accept the fact that perhaps the Republicans were right about the former president.
“It may be that the conservatives of the 1990s were simply right about Clinton, that once he failed to resign he really deserved to be impeached,” he added.
“Yes, the Republicans were too partisan … But the Clinton operation was also extraordinarily sordid,” he explained. He added that “everything” connected to Clinton’s sexual misconduct was bad, from using the office to procure women to buying silence and bullying accusers to “brazen public lies and perjury.”
You can say that again.
“If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape?” he asked, noting that any feminist today would not hesitate try and remove a similarly predatory CEO or supervisor.
Douthat’s right, and his questions bring us back to the hypocrisy of Democrats. When they had the opportunity to remove Clinton, they instead shamelessly abandoned their feminist principles, smeared victims, and ignored his accusers, “all because Republicans funded the investigations and they’re prudes and it’s all just Sexual McCarthyism.”
Douthat pointed out how politics wrongly trumped everything else in the 1990s — especially when it came to the Clintons — and how the Democrats might have been wrong to let that happen.
Now, after years of loyalty, it seems as though The Times is throwing the Clintons under the bus after realizing Bill was no better than any of the other sexual predators we are learning about today.
There is simply no way to defend this kind of filthy behavior.
Please like and share this story on Facebook and Twitter to spread the word about how The Times may be turning on the Clintons.
What do you think of this NYT piece? Scroll down to comment below!