Video: Whoopi says Polanski didn’t commit “rape-rape”

posted at 9:30 am on September 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

How low will Hollywood go in defending Roman Polanski? Former Oscar hostess Whoopi Goldberg tries to parse the meaning of rape between rape and something called “rape-rape” — which, if you read the testimony of Polanski’s victim, Polanski literally did by raping her and then sodomizing her. Goldberg tries to argue that Polanski pled guilty to statutory rape, not actual rape, which is true, and that he served a sentence — which is absolutely false:

Tommy Christopher can hardly believe this argument:

What I find much more disturbing is that, in that clip and another one that’s posted at Jezebel, the ladies of The View engage in some terrifying “debate” about what happened to then-13-year-old Samantha Geimer. Whoopi floats the notion that rape “wasn’t the allegation,” and that the victim “was aware,” and Melissa Gilbert thinks it makes a difference that “Mom was in the building.”

What the EFF? I hate to even point out the sickeningly obvious here. First of all, “rape-rape” was the allegation. Samantha Geimer testified that she told Polanski “No!” While Polanski denies this, he loses a couple of credibility points by drugging and sodomizing a 13 year old girl. I’d say she gets the benefit of the doubt here.

Notwithstanding that, though, is that the standard of consent now, “She was aware?” Keep an eye on your drinks, ladies, because in Whoopi’s world, the right dose of rohypnol will leave you just conscious enough to have deserved it.

Although Polanski got a deal in which the counts of actual rape and sodomy got dropped, the victim’s testimony makes clear that Polanski did both, and it wasn’t consensual at all. He drugged his victim to make her more compliant, and then forced himself on her twice despite her protestations. Whoopi wants to focus on the age of the victim and the reduced charge for the plea agreement to make it into a Lolita situation, perhaps where the girl and her mother stalked Polanski, rather than a violent rape and sodomy.

I’m curious how other Hollywood feminists see this. Debra Winger defended Polanski yesterday and demanded that the US drop the charges, after many years of feminist complaints from Winger about the Hollywood system. She doesn’t appear to apply her standards and values to a male director who victimized a child trying to break into the business, but Winger will gas on for hours about how older women get mistreated by Hollywood. This seems to be a big credibility test for Hollywood, one which they are flunking — badly.

Not everyone has flunked it, however. Washington Post’s reliable liberal voice Eugene Robinson contradicts Anne Applebaum (who absurdly claimed not to know that her husband was pushing for Polanski’s release and the withdrawal of the arrest warrant) and wonders what the hell is wrong with Polanski’s defenders:

Polanski has dual French-Polish citizenship, and officials in Paris and Warsaw are outraged. Which makes me outraged. What’s their beef? That Polanski is 76? That he makes great movies? That he only fled to escape what might well have been an unjust sentence? Sorry, mes amis, but none of this matters. If you decide to become a fugitive, you accept the risk that someday you might get caught.

Much has been made of the fact that Polanski’s victim, now 45, has said she no longer feels any anger toward him and does not want to see him jailed. But it’s irrelevant what the victim thinks and feels as a grown woman. What’s important is what she thought and felt at age 13, when the crime was committed. Those who argue that there’s something unjust about Polanski’s arrest are essentially accepting his argument that it’s possible for a 13-year-old girl, under the influence of alcohol and drugs, to “consent” to sex with a man in his 40s. Or maybe his defenders are saying that drugging and raping a child is simply not such a big deal.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s a huge deal. Even in France, it should be a big deal. This isn’t about a genius who is being hounded for flouting society’s hidebound conventions. It’s about a rich and powerful man who used his fame and position to assault — in every sense, to violate — an innocent child.

And it’s about a man who ran away rather than face the consequences of his actions. Before any sentence could be imposed, he absconded like a weasel to live a princely life in France.

Only a moron or a moral midget would read the transcripts and the actual facts of the case and conclude that Polanski deserves to avoid accountability for this crime. Unfortunately, Hollywood is filled with both.

Update: Jazz Shaw notes that both Goldberg and Winger are active in a certain kind of charity work:

I did some quick checking at “Look to the Stars” which promotes charitable work by celebrities, and Debra Winger is listed as one of their most prominent advocates for women’s issues charities. And what is the fourth most prominently championed organization there? The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. And who else is listed as a key supporter on the same page? Why, it’s none other than Whoopi Goldberg, whose profile includes the following:

The comedienne has channeled her celebrity into bringing attention to countless causes including AIDS, children’s issues, healthcare and substance abuse.

So, Ms. Winger and Ms. Goldberg are both prominent activists in the protection of females and children. Unless, of course, the female child in question crosses paths with the great Roman Polanski, in which case, well… you know… we understand they’re all kind of whores at that age, right?

Apparently that’s the message coming from Hollywood feminists and defenders of children like Goldberg and Winger.

Update: As for the argument that the judge was going to unfairly renege on Polanski’s plea bargain, Michael Stickings has the most sensible answer for that:

If the case was politically motivated or mishandled … let the evidence be presented in a court of law, not in the faux court of the pro-celebrity press.

Exactly.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Whoopi isn’t dumb.

She’s evil. She knows exactly what she is saying, and she is defending acts even Polanski is ashamed of.

There is no excuse.

ManUFan on September 29, 2009 at 12:22 PM

If he had done it when he was a film star, and he didn’t know she was 13? You guy’s would be making excuses left and right.

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Absolute rot! Like I said, don’t presume that we’re as sick as the liberals currently making excuses for Polanski. What the hell would Ronnie’s actor status have to do with it? Nothing! Jeez what a dullard.

Sharke on September 29, 2009 at 12:22 PM

You only denounced him after the news broke and it was a political necessity.

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:15 PM

And you only condemned him to help the democrats win his seat. And if I remember right those e-mail were turned over by republican, the demodrats held on to them until they could be used in the context of “culture of corruption”

Gwillie on September 29, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Heh, good one. Remember Mark Foley? At least a dozen Republican congressman knew about the perv’s emails and they still kept their mouths shut, including the Speaker of the House Hastert. You only denounced him after the news broke and it was a political necessity.

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:15 PM

If by “you” you mean “us” then how could we possibly denounce it before the news broke?

Sharke on September 29, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Not that I ever thought much of Whoopi Goldberg before this, but I think way less of her now. She ought to just come out and say she doesn’t give a cr@p about a 13yr old girl who was raped, she just wants Polanski to be free to keep making his movies. She thinks his movies are more important than a little girl.
God these people make me ill.

4shoes on September 29, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Whoopi is “UGLY-UGLY”.

poxoma on September 29, 2009 at 12:26 PM

What has Barney Frank done??
dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 12:21 PM

…Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Barney Frank admitted a lengthy relationship with a male hooker who ran a bisexual prostitution service out of Frank’s apartment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/frank.htm

That’s all. /sarc

kingsjester on September 29, 2009 at 12:26 PM

What has Barney Frank done??

Nothing, unless you count this:

In 1987 Frank publicly announced that he was a homosexual. Three years later the House of Representatives, acting on the recommendation of the House Ethics Committee, voted by a 408-18 margin to reprimand the congressman for having “reflected discredit upon the House.” At issue was the fact that Frank had paid for sex from a male prostitute named Steve Gobie, whom he subsequently hired as a personal “aide.” Frank also had paid for Gobie’s psychiatric treatments; had used his political influence to dismiss 33 parking tickets which the prostitute had been issued; and had written, on congressional stationery, letters on Gobie’s behalf to Virginia probation officials. Gobie, for his part, had used Frank’s Capitol Hill apartment as a house of prostitution for 18 months. The congressman later claimed that he had been unaware of Gobie’s illegal activities inside the apartment, and that he had fired the aide upon learning of them.

RadClown on September 29, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Pretty disgusting Whoopi. Rape is “rape”.

I do agree with most of the comments here, but it is amusing how suddenly all of the Hot-Airheads have become feminists on the issue. If a con had done it instead of Polanski I have a feeling we’d have a lot of “but rape is a crime of violence” and “she didn’t resist” comments here. Here’s to hoping you guys remain liberal on the issue.

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:02 PM

You could not be more wrong here. Conervatives DO have a moral compass and we throw our degenerates overboard.

karenhasfreedom on September 29, 2009 at 12:27 PM

If a con had done it instead of Polanski I have a feeling we’d have a lot of “but rape is a crime of violence” and “she didn’t resist” comments here. Here’s to hoping you guys remain liberal on the issue.

crr6 on September 29, 2009

Most conservatives don’t separate right and wrong into liberal/conservative camps, weighted by political bias. Clearly you do. Sad but not surprising for an ideology that sees everything through the prism of emotion.

SKYFOX on September 29, 2009 at 12:30 PM

Well, after PO’ing a lot of folks yesterday with my Doctor/Lawyer/Priest joke, let’s see whose indignation I can stoke today. Here’s a question for everybody:

Why does he have to be punished twice?

You see, I don’t like the double jeopardy aspect of our dual civil/criminal trial system. No doubt, he’s a raping bastard worthy of incarceration, but how many times do we penalize a perp? This seems to me a system designed mostly to benefit members of the ABA, not society.
Personally, I don’t think he should have been able to “reach a settlement” with the victim as has been reported (by the victim). If a monetary settlement to the victim is in the interest of justice, that should be within the purview of the criminal adjudicator. In the absence of a criminal conviction, why is there a second chance -with a lower standard of proof- available to a plaintiff? He apparently paid the victim sufficiently to assuage any sense of vengeance on her part, and although I feel that such payment does not mitigate the criminal violation of our societal mores, I do feel that it should ‘carry weight’ in a conservative mind that makes judgements regarding uniform punishment for said violations.

Doorgunner on September 29, 2009 at 12:30 PM

By Clinton, his crime is an affair? Rudy Giuliani had an affair with Judith Nathan. As far as I kow, Rudy has not been purged. I don’t know if Rudy used a cigar with Judith, so maybe it’s different.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Wow, Clinton was disbarred for having an affair?

jaime on September 29, 2009 at 12:31 PM

And yet again Hollywood proves itself to be a cesspool of the morally repugnant.

BakerAllie on September 29, 2009 at 12:32 PM

And you only condemned him to help the democrats win his seat.

Proof please? Unlike you scum, we Democrats don’t tolerate child-pervs in our ranks.

And if I remember right those e-mail were turned over by republican, the demodrats held on to them until they could be used in the context of “culture of corruption”

Gwillie on September 29, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Nope. There is no evidence that any Democratic congressman knew about the emails before their release to the media. I think some Democratic staffers knew, and they immediately wrote a report critical of Foley, while Repubs like Hastert were trying to downplay the emails as just “friendly”. This one’s on you. Own it.

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:32 PM

I just emailed the View and asked that for the next show, Whoopi explain to us what the difference between “rape” and “rape-rape” is. Just so I know.

I do agree with most of the comments here, but it is amusing how suddenly all of the Hot-Airheads have become feminists on the issue. If a con had done it instead of Polanski I have a feeling we’d have a lot of “but rape is a crime of violence” and “she didn’t resist” comments here. Here’s to hoping you guys remain liberal on the issue.

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:02 PM

I am a feminist you f*cking degenerate. Unlike you, however, I do not stereotype feminists as liberal. Because I’m not a moron who only sees things as “liberal” or “conservative”. I can tell you though that if someone tried to “rape” or “rape-rape” me, they’d end up with a eunuch.

mjk on September 29, 2009 at 12:32 PM

You could not be more wrong here. Conervatives DO have a moral compass and we throw our degenerates overboard.

karenhasfreedom on September 29, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Tell that to Denis Hastert.

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Why does this morally repulsive person keep showing in commercials?

Back in the Nineties, she made front page news by promoting her abortion. “The toughest decision I ever had to make”. Millions of dollars in the bank, but not a cent to raise your own child or at least give it up for adoption.

Who cares what she thinks?

Hening on September 29, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Guinan hates when you speak and don’t have all the facts, then she speaks without the facts. How did Guinan feel about the sex abuser Catholic priests? Did they deserve a pass? Did she call on the standards of the rest of the world to be applied to them? What a fraud.

vilebody on September 29, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Whoopi is not only ugly on the outside but on the inside as well. Not too surprised here. Hollywood immoral narcissists defending a rapist-nothing to see here-move along.

texanpride on September 29, 2009 at 12:34 PM

She was clear. She didn’t necessarily want her 13 year old daughter having sex.

sammypants on September 29, 2009 at 9:44 AM

Guys like sex. The whole ‘to catch a predator’ thing is based on this premise. Even if an underaged girl begs you to come over and have sex with her, you are required to deny your natural urges and say no – or you break the law.

ThackerAgency on September 29, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Let’s be very clear on this gentlemen, rape is NOT sex. It all about power and abuse.

Trafalgar on September 29, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Well, after PO’ing a lot of folks yesterday with my Doctor/Lawyer/Priest joke, let’s see whose indignation I can stoke today. Here’s a question for everybody:

Why does he have to be punished twice?

You see, I don’t like the double jeopardy aspect of our dual civil/criminal trial system. No doubt, he’s a raping bastard worthy of incarceration, but how many times do we penalize a perp? This seems to me a system designed mostly to benefit members of the ABA, not society.
Personally, I don’t think he should have been able to “reach a settlement” with the victim as has been reported (by the victim). If a monetary settlement to the victim is in the interest of justice, that should be within the purview of the criminal adjudicator. In the absence of a criminal conviction, why is there a second chance -with a lower standard of proof- available to a plaintiff? He apparently paid the victim sufficiently to assuage any sense of vengeance on her part, and although I feel that such payment does not mitigate the criminal violation of our societal mores, I do feel that it should ‘carry weight’ in a conservative mind that makes judgements regarding uniform punishment for said violations.

Doorgunner on September 29, 2009 at 12:30 PM

A civil suit tries to bring some amount of restitution for the damages one has cause another. It has very little to do with the criminal case which has more to do with breaking a law than an action against an individual, per se.

Jeff from WI on September 29, 2009 at 12:34 PM

If a “con” had done this, they would be in jail, making them a double con.

alliebobbitt on September 29, 2009 at 12:35 PM

What has Barney Frank done??

By Clinton, his crime is an affair? Rudy Giuliani had an affair with Judith Nathan. As far as I kow, Rudy has not been purged. I don’t know if Rudy used a cigar with Judith, so maybe it’s different.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Frank? Do you mean beside “Barney Frank (D-Mass.) knew that Gobie had operated a prostitution service out of Frank’s Capitol Hill apartment” and do not forget about fannie mae and freddie mac.
Of course, Clinton did not commit perjury and lose his law license either.

Johan Klaus on September 29, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Or a con con, and I think everyone who commits rape rape should go to jail jail.

alliebobbitt on September 29, 2009 at 12:38 PM

I am a feminist you f*cking degenerate. Unlike you, however, I do not stereotype feminists as liberal. Because I’m not a moron who only sees things as “liberal” or “conservative”. I can tell you though that if someone tried to “rape” or “rape-rape” me, they’d end up with a eunuch.

mjk on September 29, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Relax, we’re in agreement. Now let’s join in denouncing conservatives who want to have “resistance” and “fighting back” put in statutes as an element of the crime of rape. The focus should be on the perpetrator’s conduct, not on the victim’s.

Most conservatives don’t separate right and wrong into liberal/conservative camps, weighted by political bias. Clearly you do. Sad but not surprising for an ideology that sees everything through the prism of emotion.

SKYFOX on September 29, 2009 at 12:30 PM

You really don’t have any credibility making the “partisan lines are meaningless” point while posting on a hyper-partisan blog like HA. Dividing people into liberal/conservative has it’s limits, but it can be also be instructive. Feminists, and others who want to liberalize rape laws by making “sexual penetration” itself satisfy the “force requirement” in rape statutes (among other reforms)most often fall on the liberal side. It’s a fact and it’s useful to point that out.

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:39 PM

I do agree with most of the comments here, but it is amusing how suddenly all of the Hot-Airheads have become feminists on the issue. If a con had done it instead of Polanski I have a feeling we’d have a lot of “but rape is a crime of violence” and “she didn’t resist” comments here. Here’s to hoping you guys remain liberal on the issue.

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:02 PM

One thing you might of missed about conservatives. We generally believe in LAWS. You see, unlike liberals, we usually throw out to the wolves anyone who has broken laws, or even moral codes. Unlike your typical Democrat, we don’t rally around someone because he’s a famous singer or director. Most of us are repulsed by one of our own breaking the rules as much as if a liberal did. That’s one of the differences between liberals & conservatives.

Jeff from WI on September 29, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Tell that to Denis Hastert.

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:32 PM

We know you’re a pedophile.

alliebobbitt on September 29, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Heh, good one. Remember Mark Foley? At least a dozen Republican congressman knew about the perv’s emails and they still kept their mouths shut, including the Speaker of the House Hastert. You only denounced him after the news broke and it was a political necessity.

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Hey, remember what this thread is about, blockhead? It’s about a film star, not a political official. You have no reason whatsoever to be on the wrong side of this issue.
This is one area we should be in solid bipartisan agreement, am I right?

Diane on September 29, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Gerry Studds – Democrat

In 1983 Studds was a central figure in the Congressional page sex scandal.

Studds defended his sexual relationship with the minor as a “consensual relationship with a young adult.”

Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure.

Studds retired from Congress in 1997.

Wanna hear about Alcee Hastings?

jaime on September 29, 2009 at 12:41 PM

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:02 PM

What if he had raped you?

Johan Klaus on September 29, 2009 at 12:42 PM

You really don’t have any credibility making the “partisan lines are meaningless” point while posting on a hyper-partisan blog like HA.

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Everything is partisan, and you’re an idiot to pretend otherwise. Suddenly, we’re not entitled to our opinions on a blog YOU ARE TROLLING, because it challenges the viewpoints of all the other partisan blogs and networks out there. YOU DO NOT DICTATE THE RULES HERE.

alliebobbitt on September 29, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Polanski is a scumbag, and I’m glad he’s finally been brought to justice. All the Hollyweird libs can FOAD for defending this POS.

alliebobbitt on September 29, 2009 at 12:45 PM

right2bright:
I hear that Barney Frank paid for sex. I didn’t know about his history. I don’t care about that, but I guess that’s because I am a liberal.

I also hear that Clinton having an affair was not the issue, but the issue is that he lied about it. I guess it’s OK to have an affair as long as you admit it afterwards. When Rudy was asked about Nathan, he said:

“She’s a good friend, a very good friend…Beyond that, you can ask me questions, and that’s exactly what I’m going to say…I think I’ve told you everything that I believe you have a right to know about. And the rest is my private life”
Daily News (New York)
May 4, 2000, Thursday
RUDY: SHE’S ‘GOOD FRIEND’ ADMITS RELATIONSHIP WITH E.SIDE WOMAN
BYLINE: By TRACEY TULLY and KEVIN McCOY With Michael R. Blood DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

I guess if Clinton was moral, that would have been his response.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 12:46 PM

But there are indications that Democrats spent months circulating five less insidious Foley e-mails to the news media before they were published by ABC News last month, which prompted the leaking of the more salacious instant messages. Harper’s Magazine said Tuesday it obtained the five e-mails from a Democratic Party operative,

From the Seattle Times
The media and the democrats had the text messages, they got them from the republicans, the dems choose to keep the information until near the election, it’s as simple as that.
But that aside, what do you think of Polanski should he be brought back or will you be first in line for his next movie?

Gwillie on September 29, 2009 at 12:47 PM

The depravity of the Hollywood elite culture is astounding!

Morality to them is completely dependent on how popular the offender is with them and their friends. How can they be so completely blind?

This is the kind of thing Americans were trying to end when declaring independence. There is not a separate right and wrong depending on how well connected you are.

Wrong is wrong.

petunia on September 29, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Everything is partisan, and you’re an idiot to pretend otherwise.
alliebobbitt on September 29, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Read my post again. I said partisan divisions can be instructive. I’m in a sense agreeing with you. Relax. You should be arguing with this her..

Because I’m not a moron who only sees things as “liberal” or “conservative”.

mjk on September 29, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Or this guy…

Most conservatives don’t separate right and wrong into liberal/conservative camps, weighted by political bias. Clearly you do. Sad but not surprising for an ideology that sees everything through the prism of emotion.

SKYFOX on September 29, 2009 at 12:30 PM

They seem to downplay “partisan” lines. Are they morons?

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Now I know why people call Qualudes “panty-droppers”.

Polanski is a perv and he needs to go to prison.

molonlabe28 on September 29, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Not one in Hollywood has the courage, or fortitude, to speak out against rape, especially when a child is the victim. Either they stay silent of their opposition to Polanski, or they have no problem with adults drugging, raping, sodomizing, and violating children. So which is it?

I suspect, that if these violent crimes happened to them, or their children, their outrage against someone like Polanski would be a tad more verbal, and a hell of a lot louder.

capejasmine on September 29, 2009 at 12:53 PM

What if he had raped you?

Johan Klaus on September 29, 2009 at 12:42 PM

What point are you trying to make? I said I agree with most the comments here. What Polanski did was disgusting and inexcusable. Get it?

We know you’re a pedophile.

alliebobbitt on September 29, 2009 at 12:39 PM

This is also disgusting and inexcusable. That’s a very serious and grave term and to use it as a cheap insult without any factual support is horrible. I don’t know how you live with yourself.

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Terrible example, you implied all conservatives would defend a Republican if nabbed in a scandal, then you say a dozen Republican Congressmen kept in under cover.

Gingrich and Livingstone were gone once we found out they cheated on their wives.

Democrats still have pervert Barney Frank around, after his male catamite was found running a prostitution ring out of his government funded town home, with Frank’s full knowledge.

And that’s on top of Frank’s corruption and incompetence in almost destroying the US economy.

NoDonkey on September 29, 2009 at 12:55 PM

They seem to downplay “partisan” lines. Are they morons?

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Leave me out of your pathetic little pissing match, sweetpea.

mjk on September 29, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Morally sick sick sick sick sick.

nyx on September 29, 2009 at 12:55 PM

and others who want to liberalize weaponize rape laws by making “sexual penetration” itself satisfy the “force requirement” in rape statutes (among other reforms)(like making consent revocable after the fact) most often fall on the liberal side. It’s a fact and it’s useful to point that out rub it in.
crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:39 PM

There I fixed it for you

Gwillie on September 29, 2009 at 12:56 PM

I like watching Liberals debate. It’s like homeless fight club: no style, no substance, and lots of sloppy back and forth. Hypocrisy doesn’t even begin to describe Whoopie’s whoppers.

Never forget: The Left hates women, children, and blacks; it patronizingly loathes the weak, while pretending to protect them.

EMD on September 29, 2009 at 12:57 PM

You know there is a reason for the statutory rape law. There is a power difference that comes with age.

And to the guy who is so political about this… what’s up with that?

Why do you care about Republicans having affairs but have no problem with Democrats committing rape?

You, my friend, not us, have double standard.

I suppose you say it is the hypocrisy that bugs you about the Republicans. But Republicans always pay a political price Democrats seldom do.

That is your double standard. That is your hypocrisy.

petunia on September 29, 2009 at 12:59 PM

If it were one of the annointed one’s girls, would it be rape or rape-rape? I need clarification b/c if I decide to rob a bank on the way home tonight, I need to know if it would be robbery or just a touch of rob-rob?

Ris4victory on September 29, 2009 at 1:01 PM

This is also disgusting and inexcusable. That’s a very serious and grave term and to use it as a cheap insult without any factual support is horrible. I don’t know how you live with yourself.

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM

You are at very least guilty of condoning and excusing it. So you still worship Micheal Jackson? Yep.

petunia on September 29, 2009 at 1:01 PM

N.O.W. Feminists: All sex including that between a married couple is rape.

N.O.W Feminists regarding Polanski: Chirping Crickets

Hollywood Feminists:Rape is OK if a liberal rapes you.

Jeff from WI on September 29, 2009 at 1:05 PM

We know you’re a pedophile.

alliebobbitt on September 29, 2009 at 12:39 PM

This is also disgusting and inexcusable. That’s a very serious and grave term and to use it as a cheap insult without any factual support is horrible. I don’t know how you live with yourself.

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM

You’re the one defending the indefensible and threadjacking here. There can only be one good reason why.

Read my post again. I said partisan divisions can be instructive. I’m in a sense agreeing with you. Relax. You should be arguing with this her.

I read your post fine the first time. You said anyone commenting on a “hyper-partisan” blog like HotAir loses credibility on partisanship. FAIL.

alliebobbitt on September 29, 2009 at 1:05 PM

The fact that this is excused on the View or in any Hollywood circle should not surprise anyone. I guess the argument for any liberal who kills his wife might be “Well it wasn’t murder – murder – after all he did serve him a cold dinner”. We have to stop reporting on what these morally bankrupted people say. It has no more relevance than what my dog could say if he had vocal cords.

marnes on September 29, 2009 at 1:05 PM

“Moderates” like to pretend hardcore conservatives don’t change minds…yet here is crr6 using the same “aggression makes it rape” line we demanded be applied equally by the law when Juanita Broderick came forward.

Chris_Balsz on September 29, 2009 at 1:06 PM

I obviously meant “She” not “he” served him a cold dinner!!

marnes on September 29, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Never forget: The Left hates women, children, and blacks; it patronizingly loathes the weak, while pretending to protect them.

EMD on September 29, 2009 at 12:57 PM

Absolutely true. It holds these people in such contempt to excuse exploiting them. It sees them in terms of groups versus as individuals, for expediency.

alliebobbitt on September 29, 2009 at 1:07 PM

This is also disgusting and inexcusable. That’s a very serious and grave term and to use it as a cheap insult without any factual support is horrible. I don’t know how you live with yourself.

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Yeah, that is a despicable accusation. But so is telling us that we’d support rape if Polanski were a movie star. Own it.

gwelf on September 29, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Never forget: The Left hates women, children, and blacks; it patronizingly loathes the weak, while pretending to protect them.

EMD on September 29, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Absolutely true. It holds these people in such contempt to excuse exploiting them. It sees them in terms of groups versus as individuals, for expediency.

alliebobbitt on September 29, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Okay okay I get it. Polansky didn’t rape all 13 year old girls so it’s no big deal.

Left logic hurts my brain.

petunia on September 29, 2009 at 1:15 PM

I have a feeling that the same people who are defending Pedohileski are the same ones who a spreading false rumors about Glenn Beck raping some 17 year old.

stackedeck on September 29, 2009 at 1:15 PM

I have a feeling that the same people who are defending Pedohileski are the same ones who a spreading false rumors about Glenn Beck raping some 17 year old.

stackedeck on September 29, 2009 at 1:15 PM

Sigh. I knew they would start with this kind of thing. I hope that isn’t true… And I hope Beck addresses it. Because that stuff does matter to me. I am absolutely sure if Beck did something like that he would do everything to make amends somehow. Even go to jail if that’s what’s called for.

petunia on September 29, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Whoopi is nothing but a screeching hyena. I can’t stand her.

ErinF on September 29, 2009 at 1:21 PM

When someone like Whoopi or Winger says the loathsome thing they do, is it really so hard to see the demonic creatures they are?

Jeff from WI on September 29, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Does anyone have a clue why after thirty years and numerous opportunities, why this arrest took place?

Cindy Munford on September 29, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Whoopi and her ilk are forgetting (or ignoring) that rape is a crime of violence, not one of sex. Sex is the weapon, which I was taught in college during a feminist-studies course run by a professor who is a rape victim herself. Whoopi and her kind need to read Against Our Will. Maybe they’ll become enlightened.

Liam on September 29, 2009 at 1:26 PM

Whoopi if that were your daughter, you’d want him dead, rape-rape or not.

jaboba on September 29, 2009 at 1:26 PM

Does anyone have a clue why after thirty years and numerous opportunities, why this arrest took place?

Cindy Munford on September 29, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Because Polanski finally went to a country with extradition treaties. And he thumbed his nose at prosecutors.

originalpechanga on September 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Franks boyfriend ran a gay brothel in Franks apartment, when he was busted Franks pretended he didn’t know anything about it…the problem is that outside Franks apartment their are parking meters, and he went to the city and had literally hundreds of these tickets that his boyfriends clients received removed from the record.
You should read and learn more about your liberal heroes, the fact that you don’t know about Franks very public history shows that you don’t do much vetting.
And of course he was sleeping with one of the execs from either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac…you didn’t know this?
Clinton had more then one affair, you should read a little more about him…being a deviant, isn’t against the law, it’s just that liberals seem to embrace and empower them.

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 1:32 PM

originalpechanga on September 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM

I was under the impression that he has a home in the country he was arrested. I probably misunderstood.

Cindy Munford on September 29, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Does anyone have a clue why after thirty years and numerous opportunities, why this arrest took place?

Cindy Munford on September 29, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Hew snuck into these countries, and stayed “low”..but he got more brazen and the police finally tired of his game and nailed him.

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 1:33 PM

I have heard of heroin-chic. We now have child molester-chic.

Jerricho68 on September 29, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Cindy Munford:

Does anyone have a clue why after thirty years and numerous opportunities, why this arrest took place?

This is the official version:

Because Polanski finally went to a country with extradition treaties.-originalpechanga

Here is a more plausible answer:
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/54085,news,roman-polanski-and-the-ubs-link

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 1:34 PM

I was under the impression that he has a home in the country he was arrested. I probably misunderstood.

Cindy Munford on September 29, 2009 at 1:33 PM

He did, and he came and went “under the radar”, but when he started becoming more public, I have a feeling the U.S. said enough is enough…the authorities, not Obama.

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 1:34 PM

I can’t understand why there are posters here making this into a political problem.
Pointing out hypocrisy on the R or L isn’t really useful here.
The major problem I have here is that these women, some who are MOTHERS, on the View, are condoning this man’s behavior by trivializing the victim’s experience.
Honestly, it doesn’t matter if a 13yo girl jumps upon a naked older man & begs him to have sex with her, it is still a crime & should be bcs we all know (us mature people, that is) that 13yo’s cannot rationally think about things like this.
Those of you trying to hijack this thread & make it into a L vs R thing are missing a point.
Hollywood is an immoral cesspool. And I don’t care whether they are L or R: they are sickos.
The only interesting thing about any of this is that Hollywood is overwhelmingly liberal & guess what? They are morally vacuous.

Badger40 on September 29, 2009 at 1:34 PM

…being a deviant, isn’t against the law, it’s just that liberals seem to embrace and empower them.

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 1:32 PM

+10
And deviants cannot separate their deviant behavior in the bedroom from their growing deviant behavior elsewhere.
Which is why a philandering public official-Rudy included- is not fit for service.
If he cheats on his partner, he’ll cheat somewhere else in life.
This is a fact gleaned from observation of history as well as from my own personal experiences in life.

Badger40 on September 29, 2009 at 1:37 PM

right2bright:

You should read and learn more about your liberal heroes

I am not a Democrat, and Clinton and Obama are not my heroes. Democrats and Republicans are identical in my eyes, which is why I didn’t want to get dragged into a republican vs democrat debate. But you insisted. I would like to be done with this now, if you don’t mind.

the fact that you don’t know about Franks very public history shows that you don’t do much vetting.

Oh well. There’s a lot I don’t know.

Clinton had more then one affair

So one is OK, greater than one is a deviant. Check.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 1:38 PM

While hosting the Oscars a few years back, Whoopi Goldberg cracked, “Lorena Bobbitt, please meet Bob Dole.”

Bobbitt, of course, had infamously cut off her husband’s (ahem) in retaliation for an alleged sexual assault.

Republican senator Dole’s crime? He was running for president against incumbent Democrat Bill Clinton. Goldberg’s meaning, then, was plain: Dole, for daring to upset the Left’s apple cart, deserved to have his (ahem) cut off. But Polanski, having drugged and repeatedly raped a thirteen year old girl and then fled the country, apparently deserves to keep his, as well as his freedom, at least in the eyes of one Whoopi Goldberg.

Faux-minists. You gotta love ‘em.

DubiousD on September 29, 2009 at 1:42 PM

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 11:03 AM

You know, I don’t really care why the arrest took place now. That is totally irrelevent to the fact the man pled guilty to statuatory rape (to have more serious charges dropped and to avoid having to face a jury) and fled the US prior to sentencing, and has been living the good life in Europe for 30+ years.

It is time he serves his sentence. Period.

ladyingray on September 29, 2009 at 1:42 PM

Badger40:

Which is why a philandering public official-Rudy included- is not fit for service.

I disagree, but you have a principled stance and you use the same principles to judge everyone, whether they are a Democrat or Republican. This is very rare. Cool.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 1:42 PM

I guess Whoppi doesn’t think Oprah was raped either.

TrickyDick on September 29, 2009 at 1:43 PM

I don’t care what kind of deal was made to bring this pervert back. He anally sodomized a 13 year old girl. He skipped to avoid sentencing. He has been living in opulence ever since. This is not a Right vs. Left thing. This is a Right vs. Wrong thing. Bring him back and lock him up. Now.

kingsjester on September 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Does anyone know if Whoopi ever made a public statement regarding the Duke rape case?

ladyingray on September 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM

ladyingray:

You know, I don’t really care why the arrest took place now. That is totally irrelevent…

The girl said in court that she had sex twice before Polanski. Are you just as concerned about finding who those two people are and hunting them down? I am sure she remembers their names.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 1:45 PM

The girl said in court that she had sex twice before Polanski. Are you just as concerned about finding who those two people are and hunting them down? I am sure she remembers their names.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Absolutely.

ladyingray on September 29, 2009 at 1:46 PM

This is also disgusting and inexcusable.

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM

What’s disgusting and inexcusable is that you feel justified in accusing conservatives of condoning rape, while liberals don’t. Irrespective of political ideologies, most people view the act of rape on a child as horrific.

Whether or not you agree with most of the posts here is irrelevant. What’s germane is that you think conservatives; specifically conservative pols condone sexually criminal behavior. Evidence points to members of both parties as perpetrating unscrupulous sexual exploits and their colleagues acceptance or turning a blind eye (Frank, Kennedy, et al).

So, what exactly is it that you’re defending? That it’s acceptable for Whoppi and other retarded liberals to marginalize the rape of a 13 year old girl? Or is it your hypothetical brainchild that if Polanski had been a conservative that the posts here on HA wouldn’t be as punitive? People with high moral standards don’t relegate their criticism simply to those of opposing political parties, but apparently, you do.

anXdem on September 29, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Whoopi mistates facts
That are quite well known to all.
What is her motive?

Haiku Guy on September 29, 2009 at 1:47 PM

The girl said in court that she had sex twice before Polanski. Are you just as concerned about finding who those two people are and hunting them down? I am sure she remembers their names.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Did they drug her and rape her? If yes then they should be made to answer. Even if ‘all’ they committed was statutory rape they should still be made to answer (if there isn’t a statue of limitations of statutory rape…).

gwelf on September 29, 2009 at 1:48 PM

I often like her take on issues, but this one?

Silly.

He was violent and out of control. That is clear.

I think the issue has to do with going back and rewriting history.

He made a deal. Doesn’t that count, for better or worse?

I think he needs to own up to the fugitive issue, not the rape issue.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 1:49 PM

ladyingray:

You know, I don’t really care why the arrest took place now. That is totally irrelevent…

It’s matters to me. When I first heard the story, my immediate reaction is that the arrest has nothing to do with bringing Polanski to justice for moral reasons. After 30 years? I’m not that naive. It is obvious (to those who don’t immediately accept the official story for anything) that there is a bigger reason. I like to know what those reasons are for things that happen in the world.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 1:50 PM

The girl said in court that she had sex twice before Polanski. Are you just as concerned about finding who those two people are and hunting them down? I am sure she remembers their names.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Absolutely.

ladyingray on September 29, 2009 at 1:46 PM

However, that is also irrelevent to the Polanski rape.

If you believe her testimony that she had sex twice before Polanski, then you have to believe her testimony that she repeatedly told Polanski “no” and asked him to stop.

That makes this “rape rape” as Whoopi would call it, as opposed to “just” statutory rape, as would be the case with the other two (unless of course they were under 18 and less than the required age difference at that time).

All that is relevent in this situation is that Polanski admitted he committed statutory rape and has yet to serve his sentence. It is time he does.

Stop trying to derail, troll…

ladyingray on September 29, 2009 at 1:51 PM

ladyingray:

Absolutely

Ed should start a thread about how the police should get the names of the first two and look them up. It shouldn’t be that hard to find them. Instead they are sitting around giving people speeding tickets. I’m outraged!

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 1:52 PM

He raped her. End of story. He raped her violently, too.

The times were different. His wife was murdered. He was in a Hollywood era of drugs and sex.

We all, I think, get that.

I don’t blame him for fighting this extradition, either. He’s lived with the truth, and he would whether he serves time or not, for his entire life. I wouldn’t envy that reality.

But, I sort of wonder if he and the victim didn’t have a real moment somewhere. She doesn’t want prosecution.

I think that’s because, behind the public eye, he truly made amends to her.

Just my 2 cents.

The rest is about public junk.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 1:54 PM

It’s matters to me. When I first heard the story, my immediate reaction is that the arrest has nothing to do with bringing Polanski to justice for moral reasons. After 30 years? I’m not that naive. It is obvious (to those who don’t immediately accept the official story for anything) that there is a bigger reason. I like to know what those reasons are for things that happen in the world.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Who died and made you god-of-I-have-to-know-it-all?

ladyingray on September 29, 2009 at 1:55 PM

ladyingray:

Stop trying to derail, troll…

I am not derailing anything. I agree with everything you said in your last post. There are a lot of discussions going on other than the facts of the case. Relax

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 1:55 PM

ladyingray:

Who died and made you god-of-I-have-to-know-it-all?

Sorry. I’m curious. Please don’t hate me for it.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 1:56 PM

This is disgusting.
Didn’t like the thought he’d get 100 years so he fled? Whoopi doesn’t have a problem with this?

She is devoid of a moral standard.
These crimes are the worst there are, crimes agst children!

balkanmom2 on September 29, 2009 at 1:56 PM

I think he needs to own up to the fugitive issue, not the rape issue.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 1:49 PM

The fugitive issue IS the rape issue. As ladyingray pointed out:

Polanski admitted he committed statutory rape and has yet to serve his sentence. It is time he does.

ladyingray on September 29, 2009 at 1:51 PM

anXdem on September 29, 2009 at 1:57 PM

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Lovely. The political expediencies of the case are more important to you than the act of rape itself. He did it. He admitted it. He skipped his sentencing. He’s been arrested. Quit trying to derail the thread.

kingsjester on September 29, 2009 at 1:57 PM

But, I sort of wonder if he and the victim didn’t have a real moment somewhere. She doesn’t want prosecution.

I think that’s because, behind the public eye, he truly made amends to her.

Just my 2 cents.

The rest is about public junk.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Yes they had a “real moment”…it was called VIOLENT RAPE. She was 13 years old.

You are a f’ing idiot.

AsianGirl was right – no one wants to hear your opinion.

ladyingray on September 29, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6