<p>“Care to address the nature of Santorum’s character defects with those of Bill Clinton’s and then tell us how you voted?”</p>
<p>Why would anyone want to do that?"</p>
<p>I think I’ve gotten my answer. One wouldn’t.</p>
<p>She made the public allegations in 1999. The book deal came after Clintons My Life in which the former rake-in-chief curiously mentions none of the awful allegations made against him (sexual assault/rape).</p>
<p>The book you site was not written by Broaddrick, but by another author 6 years after she herself had gone public with her allegation that Clinton had raped her, to no monetary effect. </p>
<p>She herself, to the best of my knowledge, has written no book about her youthful rape. She merely wanted her rapist to have to live with what he had done to herin his public life; a not uncommon wish of rape victims, though few have had the privilege to be raped by the then most powerful man in the state and then the free-world, or as you say, by a ladys manrape is rape.</p>
<p>Mocking her, in the least, seems offensive. It would be enough to withhold judgment, and ridicule, when someone claims they have been raped especially when others substantiate the victims claim, and still others make similar sorted claims of such a tragedy.</p>
<p>I dont know that Clinton committed this horrible act, with apodictic certainty but, as so many here are quick to offerif it walks like a duck </p>
<p>One can only imagine the effect of such allegations were the wind blowing towards the opposite shore.</p>
<p>Look, there are 70,000 rapes and 560,000 sexual assaults a year at America’s colleges and universities, including lots of them at Dartmouth. Most of the women will never report them to the Hanover police.</p>
<p>What does this have to do with the bald-faced lies told by Rick Santorum?</p>
<p>
I can see why.</p>
<p>As to SantorumWorld, as I understand it, the irascible Pennsylvania-Wit has gone out on a limb and condemned rape in his best-selling moralist-manual amongst various other media (where there has arisen a peculiar need to do sosee thread) unequivocally, unlike many ladies-men these days or did you mean to refer to his incendiary stand on Intelligent Design, God, Churches, synagogues, mosques or church-goers? hes for em, as I understand it; although, he does seem conspicuously chapfallen by the awful imputation that some good citizens lied in their testimony during the Dover imbroglio. This would suggest that he disapproves of lying as wella real earnest moralist: against rape, lying and sundry other social indiscretions (hubris not being one of them).</p>
<p>I meant simpy that one cannot evaluate the character defects reflected Santorum’s baldfaced lies (and lack of intelligence) without direct and deeply evaluated comparison to those of the Dartmouth rapists. ;)</p>
<p>And, no, I was not referring to the Dover School Board’s lies, and I posted Santorum’s own.</p>
<p>I just read this thread. Why does a discussion of Rick Santorum’s chances in the 2006 Pennsylvania U. S. Senate race evolve into a discussion of Bill Clinton? Why is it not possible to critcize any Republican politician without having someone say Clinton was worse. Suppose he was or is. He isn’t running in Pennsylvania in 2006.</p>
<p>InVirginia, the canonical response to any criticism of any Republican is “Clinton lied about sex.” </p>
<p>It’s kinda like the liturgical “And also to you” only different.</p>
<p>Santorum is defining his drop in the polls to his close association with the Bush Administration. Despite his current low standing he is going to be very difficult to beat in Pa. He will have tons of money and will likely do very well in Western Pa. The Republican organization is also much stronger than the dems in Pa. Casey is not particularly popular in the Philly suburbs. Santorum also comes across very well in debates and public appearances. I expect it to be a very close race, especially if Bill Scranton from the Lehigh
Valley is on the ticket as the Governor candidate. Personally, I don’t care for either of them.</p>
<h1>66, Invirgina:</h1>
<p>Good post. Why don’t you start a new thread with that thought. I would be honored to place my thoughts on that topic there. To make comments here would further be disrespectful to the OP.</p>
<p>I agree with much of what Speedo says, although, to borrow from Mickey Kaus at Slate earlier today–one more “spy scandal” and Bush’s approval rating will hit 60%. :)</p>
<p>(Student speaking.)</p>
<p>RE: Santorum vs Clinton</p>
<p>I’m suprised you other Pennsylvanians don’t remember the whole scandal where Santorum was fleecing the PA school district where his “home” is. He had them shelling out quite a bit for an internet charter school while his kids lived in Virginia and he could easily pay the tuition himself. Scummy.</p>
<p>I was happy about the revolt on the pay raise, but I’m still very unhappy about how our State Rep. Kelly Lewis, who *actually worked on our biggest problems<a href=“ie.%20the%20crazy%20property%20taxes%20here%20in%20Monroe”>/i</a>, defected through the revolving door to a lobbying group. <em>sigh</em></p>
<p>Merry Christmas guys!</p>
<p>there have been a couple of scandals involving Santorum, but the Dems have failed to exploit them. One of the best things Santorum has going for him is the disgraceful condition of the democratic party. Here in Del County (suburban Philly), the Democratic Presidential candidates win with close to 60% of the vote, but there has not been a County wide Dem elected in more than 20 years. Unfortunately for Santorum he has gotten a little carried away and become identified with the national extreme right, that’s what’s motivating the movement against him and will likely bring in national money for Casey. Santorum is now trying to tone down his image to mitigate that scenario. Same thing happened six years ago.</p>