Rand Paul Is Trying to Redefine the War on Women

The Kentucky Republican is using the past scandals of Bill Clinton and Woody Allen to paint Democrats as being antiwomen.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) attends a press conference with House Republicans on proposed greenhouse gas standards issued by the Environmental Protection Agency September 26, 2013 in Washington, DC. 
National Journal
Matt Berman
Feb. 25, 2014, midnight

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4750) }}

For­get the de­bate over wheth­er Mon­ica Lew­in­sky is still rel­ev­ant in 2014. Rand Paul is de­term­ined to keep Demo­crats’ past sexu­al im­pro­pri­et­ies alive, and in do­ing so change how Amer­ic­ans think about the War on Wo­men.

Paul is turn­ing to past sex scan­dals as a way to not only dis­par­age Demo­crats, but also to try to change the nar­rat­ive on which party really sup­ports wo­men. Take this from a Monday in­ter­view with NBC’s Kasie Hunt, who asked for Paul’s re­ac­tion to a Tues­day cam­paign event for Ken­tucky Demo­crat Al­is­on Lun­der­gan Grimes with Bill Clin­ton:

“If the pres­id­ent of your net­work [NBC] had re­la­tions with a 20-year-old girl who was there from col­lege, I think the pres­id­ent of your net­work would be fired,” Paul said. “We don’t ac­cept that in the work­place. So if that’s what Bill Clin­ton did mul­tiple times. Really they ought to be con­cerned about be­ing as­so­ci­ated with him.”

Paul hasn’t let up on Bill Clin­ton in 2014. Grimes, for her part, is par­tic­u­larly close with the Clin­ton fam­ily. She chaired Hil­lary Clin­ton’s 2008 pres­id­en­tial cam­paign in the state, and Tues­day will mark Bill Clin­ton’s first cam­paign stop of 2014. Asked about Sen. Paul’s re­marks, Grimes said that the former pres­id­ent “has been a friend of my fam­ily for many years.”

But Paul didn’t just name-check Clin­ton and Lew­in­sky and move on.

“Ken­tucky, we’re not quite Hol­ly­wood as far as ac­cept­ing sort of dif­fer­ent kind of things like that. Woody Al­len is ap­par­ently a big con­trib­ut­or of [Grimes], too. Woody Al­len has been now ac­cused of, you know, hav­ing re­la­tions with his chil­dren,” Paul said. “That’s not really ac­cept­able in Ken­tucky. And I think she has to de­cide wheth­er she’s rep­res­ent­ing Ken­tucky or Hol­ly­wood.”

This isn’t the first time Paul has men­tioned the re­ignited Woody Al­len scan­dal (the de­tails of which Paul does at least slightly mis­char­ac­ter­ize). In an early Feb­ru­ary ra­dio ap­pear­ance on Laura In­gra­ham’s show, Paul ac­cused Demo­crats of hy­po­crisy for call­ing them­selves “the great sa­viors of wo­men in the work­place.” He went on:

“Look at a Woody Al­len, who is a big Demo­crat giver across the coun­try, whose 7-year-old girl de­scribed what he did to her. And yet nobody in Hol­ly­wood blinks an eye and says he’s still our big pal. We love Woody Al­len. He’s a great giver to Demo­crat causes. And really there should be a so­cial shun­ning of some­body who would do something like that, if not pris­on.”

Al­len isn’t really a big Demo­crat­ic donor. He gave Grimes $500 last fall, and has oth­er­wise only donated money sporad­ic­ally since 1990. Grimes says that the sexu­al al­leg­a­tions around Al­len are for the courts to de­cide. But with Paul try­ing to help boost the Re­pub­lic­an Party’s chances with wo­men, it makes sense that he’d try to tie his op­pon­ents to men em­broiled in scan­dal — not just Clin­ton.

The Ken­tucky Re­pub­lic­an Party is go­ing after Grimes on Al­len as well. Grimes, the state party’s com­mu­nic­a­tions dir­ect­or said last month, should re­turn Al­len’s dona­tion if she “really cares about stand­ing up for Ken­tucky wo­men.” If she doesn’t, “we can only as­sume she either con­dones sexu­al har­ass­ment and dis­gust­ingly in­ap­pro­pri­ate be­ha­vi­or in the work­place, or she’s more con­cerned with her lib­er­al al­lies’ cam­paign cash than the wo­men of Ken­tucky.”

The Per­ver­ted, Amor­al Hol­ly­wood trope feels dated. And it seems es­pe­cially odd com­ing from a po­ten­tial 2016 pres­id­en­tial can­did­ate who wants to win over young people, namely Sil­ic­on Val­ley’s liber­tari­ans. But this early on in what’s sure to be an ag­gress­ive 2016 cam­paign, it makes sense for Paul to throw whatever he’s got at the wall and see what sticks, es­pe­cially when he’s tied to a party that 55 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans say doesn’t un­der­stand wo­men. So far, he seems to think that this is work­ing.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
10 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
11 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×