Pages

Friday, October 22, 2010

No, I'm Not Kidding, Don't Answer That Phone, Part Duh

Boiiiinnnggg! goes one of those fake peanut brittle cans that actually has spring-coil fake snakes in it and when you open it, Boiiinnngggg! the snakes fly out all over the room and everyone shreiks. 

So, Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, leaves a phone message for Anita Hill, asking her to apologize and 'splain her testimony about Clarence Thomas inappropriate behavior during his Supreme Court nomination hearings some nineteen years ago.  Then the whole kerfluffle hit the media like those fake flying snakes (with some critical points missing, of course) and everyone looked around and asked themselves, WTF? Why would Ms. Thomas open THAT can of peanut brittle after all these years?

Then, in all the flapdoodle, here comes Lillian McEwen, yet ANOTHER woman who knew Thomas long ago.  Reports The Washington Post,  she's "a retired administrative law judge who said she dated Clarence Thomas from 1979 through the mid 1980s," who "told The Washington Post, 'The Clarence I knew was certainly capable of not only doing the things that Anita Hill said he did, but it would be totally consistent with the way he lived his personal life then.'"

Then everyone groans.  And in the focus over "women" that a young fellow may have behaved, uh, inappropriately towards years ago, what's getting lost is the really serious issue:  Mrs. Thomas + Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas + Liberty Central + $500,000 donation (undisclosed, unaccountable) + Tea Party + Freedom Works + Dick Armey + Chamber of Commerce, all framed by the Supreme Court case, Citizens United, that her husband ruled on.

So cozy.  So cozy.  And Ms. Thomas claims that she and her husband aren't "Washington insiders."

Boiiinnngg,! Bwa-hahhahahah.

8 comments:

FOGSWAMP said...

Are Democrats to blame, along with Bush for Clarence Thomas being confirmed to the bench?

Didn't Democrats control the reins of power in the legislative branch at that time in the Senate? Senate Majority leader was George Mitchell and the Judiciary Committee Chairman was Joseph Biden.

Lilly livered Biden sat on the fence, assisted and co-managed the lynching of Anita Hill in many ways. He did not want to get involved in controversy by taking a lead roll in giving her (Hill's) testimony a fair shake.

He sat on her signed and faxed statement to him for many days, serially informing other Senators one at a time about the allegations. He agreed to let Hill testify first and then reneged, giving the first turn to Thomas and then brought on Thomas again for a second time after Hill's testimony giving Thomas the last word on the issue.

Mitchell supported Biden's modus operandi on the floor, stonewalling women's groups who wanted to delay the floor vote on the nomination by claiming disingenuously that he had no power in the matter.

Yep, they were duped into "lending a balanced approach" during the hearings.

Churadogs said...

Yup. EVERYBODY came to THAT ridiculous party! That appointment was political and quota-ish and the congress was both played and went along and was mau-maued by the fear of being accused of being racists (the card Thomas played with his "high- tech lynching" reference.) And NOBODY was willing to believe a woman in any of this, or if she was believed, the "character" issue she raised was trumped by racial politics. So America got a second-rate judicial mind for all the wrong reasons. Another case of how Presidents (and politics) can "influence" our courts. Never a good situation. And in the case of how we go about picking our Supremes, Kagen had it right when they dug up some of her comments about how the whole process is fake, a political dumbshow that's designed to NOT know anything about how the candidate thinks. Sad. And those poor choices will have profound affects on each and every one of us in our real lives, via the laws these people uphold or strike down or "legislate from the bench," so politics, in that case, IS personal.

FOGSWAMP said...

Amen.

"Strange Justice" is a book worth reading and tells the story of how well organized the Republicans were at that time and how inept and naive the Democrats were.

By the way, the reason I'm up at 5:00 am (again) is because I'm half way though another good book "Empire of the Summer Moon".

Thanks for the recommendation. Goooood read so far.

Churadogs said...

Ah, "Empire" is extraordinary. Glad you're enjoying it. It's soooo well written.

Spectator said...

The democrats are still inept and naive, FOGSWAMP. They expect something for nothing and expect that government will give it to them simply because they need.

Otherwise, this whole Clarance Thomas/Anita Hill thing as written by Ann, and as occurred, was a great heap of steaming ape guts. Apparently only the democrat/progressives came with spoons.

The liberal/progressive press during the past week came back to the feast. They really enjoy ape guts.

Spectator said...

Ann, Fogswamp, and their followers should read this:

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/strange.htm

This is the other side of the story and exposes the lies of the liars. "Strange Justice" was just part of the liberal/socialist/progressive agenda to convert the US to a Marxist system. Since they can't do it with reason and truth, they always resort to innuendo and lies!

Churadogs said...

John sez:"Otherwise, this whole Clarance Thomas/Anita Hill thing as written by Ann, and as occurred, was a great heap of steaming ape guts. Apparently only the democrat/progressives came with spoons."

Actually, having yet another woman come forward with her story isn't ape guts. It does clarify the picture. This isn't a marxist plot, John. It's human nature behaving badly. And unqualified people being put in positiions of power for political reasons (Bush sr) and the Peter Principle at work (being promoted to your level of incompetenct) etc. Human nature, John, not a marxist plot, not inuendo, not lies.

Unless you wish us to believe that Charlie Rangel's troubles are an evil Conservative, Republican plot of inuendo and lies? Don't think so. More human nature.

FOGSWAMP said...

Dear John

That's one powerful, well written statement in support of Clarence Thomas. Thanks for the link.

Do you suppose that came from the young black man that testified, or seemed principally interested in reciting his resume on national TV, at the 1991 hearing?

It will be interesting to read what the Thomas' X-girlfriend has written in her memoirs. One would think that if she recounts experiences with him which would indicate he lied under oath at his confirmation, some folk may cry loudly for impeachment.

Seems like the whole nation is asking, why in hell did she (Ginni) bring it up again after decades past?

I think I read this good answer somewhere answer "Hell hath no fury like a wife whose husband has been publicly scorned"