Studly Clinton, Partisan Flynt,
Feminists and the Snitch
By Carolyn Gargaro
January 2, 1999
Partisan. That seems to be the new buzzword floating around Capitol Hill and the world of political pundits. "The Republicans are PARTISAN!" cry the Democrats. "It's a partisan witch hunt to bring down Bill Clinton!" Feminist groups such as NOW are wailing about the "partisan campaign to impeach President Clinton", and the Democrats have even gone so far as to accuse Republicans of a coup, ignoring the fact that a coup would require them to orchestrate the removal of Vice-President Al Gore. Removing Clinton from office with Al Gore as his replacement, providing Al Gore with the opportunity to possibly have presidential power for 2.5 terms is far from a coup.
More cries: "The Impeachment was partisan! It was unfair! The Republicans are partisan!" Those who complain of this "partisan Republican impeachment" blindly ignore the fact that more Republicans voted with the Democrats than vice versa. If the Republicans were partisan then the Democrats were even more so.
However, amidst the overuse of today's new buzzword, is an odd silence. The favorite buzzword seems to be strangely absent when another name comes up. That name is Larry Flynt. I have heard few complaints about Mr. Flynt's attacks on Republicans as being "partisan." Oddly, when Republicans want to hold President Clinton accountable for lying under oath and obstruction of justice, it is referred to as a "partisan witch hunt." Where is the same outcry for Mr. Flynt's attacks on Republicans? Mr. Flynt is "outing" personal information on people, not for the purpose of an investigation, not to try and discover if these Republicans have committed felonies, but to try and "prove" that Republicans are guilty of the same crimes as President Clinton. When Clinton declared on December 19, 1998 that "we must stop the politics of personal destruction" he must have excluded Mr. Flynt from that group.
Oddly, Mr. Flynt has not proven, or even suggested, that any Republicans have lied under oath or obstructed justice. And even if he did find proof of such activity, such evidence would not exonerate Clinton. The "Well, he did it too so I can get away with it! So there!" mentality that seems to have infiltrated Washington reminds me of elementary school.
Somehow partisan becomes a dirty word when applied to Republicans. I don't expect Democrats or Republicans to be completely non-partisan - after all, one must expect a level of partisanship in a party-driven system.
I remember not too long ago the accusations that Paula Jones was a part of a partisan scheme to bring down the President. Do these same people believe that Larry Flynt is part of a partisan scheme to bring down Republicans?
Some may argue that Flynt isn't politically biased, or *ahem* "partisan." I beg to differ."'I love Clinton," he says. '" voted for him in '92. I voted for him in '96. Sure the guy had an affair and he lied about it....But how much punishment should he receive?" Of Lewinsky, he says, "'she's a snitch."Not only does the above quote display Mr. Flynt's political leanings (dare I say "partisan"? Nah - couldn't be!) but he also refers to Monica as a "snitch", ignoring the irony of the snitches who've provided him with information about Republicans. A snitch? Where is the Feminist outcry on this? (Stephanie thinks that perhaps the outcry is muffled in a pillow from the bed the Feminists are laying in with Larry Flynt!) The "snitch" mentality smacks of exactly what Feminists and many women in general have been fighting against. The "snitch" attitude puts all the blame on the woman for "opening her mouth" about an affair, as if she is the one solely to blame, while the man is to be congratulated for his "studly silence". So what if Clinton lied under oath about the affair? According to Mr. Flynt, "snitching" about an affair is worse than the illegal act of perjury. Can anyone imagine the reaction mainstream Feminist groups if a Republican called a young woman, who told of an affair because she was being investigated for a felony, a snitch, while extolling the virtues of the male party involved? What exactly did Mr. Flynt expect Monica to do when confronted by the Independent Council regarding her attempt to suborn perjury? Lie like Clinton? Perhaps if Clinton had not involved Monica in a scheme to subvert the judicial system she would not have been put in a situation where she had to "snitch."
December 29, 1998 Boston Globe
While my ears strain to hear the non-existent cry of "partisan" regarding Flynt's "outing" of Republican indiscretions, another silence becomes just as deafening - the silence of the Feminist groups regarding Mr. Flynt's recent actions (see Stephanie's article on this) as well as Mr. Clinton's "trash the woman" antics. While NOW has issued some statements regarding Clinton's actions there has been an odd silence with regards to his trashing of women he has been intimate with. NOW is instead focusing on how Clinton was "elected by women", and that "women's interests were being disregarded by the predominantly-male Republican majority in Congress." In their Impeachment Update NOW talks of how Bob Livingston is "no friend of women" because he was "dismissive of feminism in general." Do they really think Clinton's actions prove him to be a "friend of women"?
But then, placing the blame on the woman seems to be a typical tactic of Clinton and his buddies, and something many Feminists seem willing to ignore. While Clinton may have upheld his "studly silence" regarding the affair, he had no qualms about opening his mouth about how "unstable" Monica was. When the Lewinsky situation was escalating, Clinton told Sidney Blumenthal that she was a "stalker" and implied that she had emotional problems. Clinton calls her on the phone, invites her to lurk near his office so he can invite her in, promises he'll bring her back to the White House after she was removed, and somehow she is a stalker? Or was that is plan all along - to create a situation where he could have his little tryst and make Monica look bad so he could cover his rear?
Remember that darn dress Monica had? Were it not for that pesky dress and the inconvenient fact that Clinton left some DNA on it, Clinton would have used his position of power and his friends to destroy Monica and her credibility. People tend to ask why on earth she kept the dress - well, if she had not, would anyone have believed her after Clinton, the "pro-woman president" was done trashing her? As Suzanne Fields states in her article, Bad Girls and Losers, "Miss Lewinsky would have been fed to the cannibals if she had not kept the proof of the nature of her relationship with the lover she called Big Creep." (Washington Times December 31, 1998)
How "pro-woman" of Clinton - trashing a woman to cover up an affair. No wonder Mr. Flynt likes Bill Clinton - they both seem to have about the same amount of respect for women - zilch. And "zilch" is what I expect to hear from Democrats on Flynt's partisan (there's that word again) little game, or Clinton's anti-woman behavior.
This article copyright © 1999 by Carolyn Gargaro and may not be reproduced in any form without the express written consent of its author. All rights reserved.