More Stunning Hypocrisy on The View

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted this clip from The View that illustrates perfectly the liberal hypocrisy on feminism, caring for children, and probably just about everything. Whoopi Goldberg tries to make the absurd argument Roman Polanski didn't commit "rape-rape," no he just had sex with a minor. She proceeds to defend his decision to flee the country and live in exile because he was facing "a 100 years in prison." She claims he served time in prison for his crime (48 days) and when he was released decided he had done enough time. As Patterico points out, Polanski was not going to serve another 100 years in jail. His entire sentence would have been 90 days.


If you read the testimony of the victim, Whoopi's argument is almost obscene. To her credit, Sherri Sheppard argues the facts of the case instead of the accepted Hollywood rationalization for Polanski's disgusting behavior. When Hollywood would protect a man who at the age of 45 drugged and sodomized a 13 year old girl, they can no longer pretend to be the protectors of the poor and downtrodden against the evil conservatives.

There are voices of sanity, however, from the liberal community. Eugene Robinson , who I find myself in the rare occasion of agreement writes:

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.

Robinson is absolutely right, what the victim feels at age 45 is irrelevant.  This is about 13 year old girls who should not be sent a  message there is any excuse for a man any age, let alone one 30 years older, to give them drugs in order to claim there was "consent."   The message sent to male predators is astounding.  I am still astounded he was only sentenced to 90 days in jail.  Should anyone rightfully argue he shouldn't have served the other 42 days of his sentence?  Michael Vick did 23 months, deservedly mind you, in Leavenworth for his role in the abusive dog fighting racket.  The drugging and raping of a 13 year old gets 90 days and that is somehow too much?  Anyone who claims to be on the side of giving women control over their bodies should be screaming 90 days was nowhere near a just sentence.  Arguing the punishment exceeded the crime tells you all you need to know about Hollywood's commitment to the causes of women and children.

H/T: Memeorandum