A Message for Ginni Thomas

I guess it’s back to sexy-time political reporting, right, Michael Crowley?
.
It’s not like we have enough controversy going on at the moment about real items of dispute, like, say whether appropriately funded stimulative federal spending, implemented properly, would or would not act to correct a severe economic downturn?
.
“Discuss?”
.
No thanks, we’ve got the contemporaries of Milbank & Cillizza’s “Mouthpiece Theater” for that sort of fun, Michael Crowley.

Ginni Thomas was COMPLETELY out of line with her comments to Anita Hill. As the wife of a Supreme Court Justice she should be totally non political instead of being a neocon blasting the President and working for right wing causes. Her actions are a disgrace. I have litle doubt that Thomas was lying. If he had been white, he would have never been confirmed.

And ask yourself, about this and so many other things: if so many people consistently refuse to see the world your way—on matters of justice and policy and politics and history and fact—is it because they are selfish and perverse and willfully ignorant? Or might it be because they are right and you are wrong?

That’s the rub, isn’t it?

The only thing I can think of is that some people never seriously consider that second question.

Virginia’s MO: SSU (Stirring…Up)
.
The point was eloquently made yesterday that her husband’s (sigh) got one of the highest positions in the land – why should she care? Does she now want the end zone dance after the touchdown was scored 19 years ago??

real items of dispute, like, say whether appropriately funded stimulative federal spending, implemented properly, would or would not act to correct a severe economic downturn?

.
Something I happened to write a cover story about not long ago. You may have been too busy policing this blog to notice.

The thing is – Mr.Thomas golds position in Supreme court.
And conversation is NOT about Family love, but the truth – who wal a liar 19 years ago,.
it is becoming even more important, when Supreme Court Judge visits private event with Money-bagger, who is financing Trash Party, where Mrs.Thomas is pretty active.

Are not there are already toooooo many dark spots around the man?

My issue with this, Mr Crowley, is that the press is spilling a lot of gossip-flavored ink about OMG! Ginny called Anita up at 7:30 in the morning demanding an apology! and seeming passing on the conflict of interest between her activism and her husband’s judicial rulings.
.
And before the right-wingers cry, “He’s oppressing her First Amendment rights!”. I’m far more interested in making sure her husband recuses himself from ruling on any cases she’s advocated for, rather than criticize the inappropriateness of her activism. She’s allowed to be inappropriate, its a free country. Her husband actions, however, should be closely scrutinized for conflict of interest.
.
Which, again, is the whole elephant-in-the-room that the media is passing over for tattletale reporting betwixt Anita and Ginny, neither of whom sit on the Supreme Court.

Yes, why, oh, why would she make this request of Anita Hill who was so brutally treated by the conservative press after so many years? What gave her the incentive to do this? Just because she’s begun her organization? Does she fancy herself some sort of Sarah Palin? Say what you will about Sarah, she’s certainly more engaging than Ginni Thomas. Someone help me understand why she would do this?

I don’t expect many of our conservative friends to respond to this post. As much as they cry about Liberals being arrogant, smug, defaming folks, they ain’t got nothing that compares to what happened to Anita Hill.

Anita Hill was one of them. A conservative black woman who followed behind her mentor, Clarence Thomas. If anything, their politics was similar. However, Clarence Thomas is a man, recently divorced, and finding a like minded black woman couldn’t have been far from his mind. Afterall, Ms. Hill was attractive, very intelligent, maybe a bit on the modest side, but his having an interest in her was understandable. Do I think Thomas was boorish? Heck, I know respectable men who act much worse than simply talking about their sexual prowness and pubic hair in coke cans. But I digress . . . . . . . . .

When Anita Hill came out and revealed his behavior, the Conservative attack machine went into action. Even though she had been dragged in by the Democrats when FBI files revealed that Thomas admitted hitting on her. They claimed she was out for fame, that she was a Liberal (she was not) and that she must be a Lesbian. They attacked her savagely. Defamed her and threw her under the bus. Some snotty Conservative kid wrote, “The Real Anita Hill”, which he had since revealed had no real research, that his book contained rumors and indunnendo, that nothing was based on fact.

And now, 20 years after the fact, Virginia Thomas extends an “olive branch” by asking Ms. Hill to apologize and give a full account of why she “lied” about Thomas’ husband. What arrogance!!

So, to my Conservative friends in Swmpland, those of you who constantly complain about Liberal attacks on conservatives, who claim Liberals are constantly defaming Conservatives, who claim Liberals are extremely arrogant, can any of you, Rusty, 3xfire3, freeinpa, can any of you give an instant where Liberals savagely attacked someone as badly as Conservates attacked Anita Hill?

I don’t remember seeing a book by some Liberal called “The Real Paula Jones” or “The Real Monica Lewinsky”. Has anyone been more arrogant than Virginia Thomas, whose idea of burying the hatchet is calling up Anita Hill and asking that she apologize and give a full account of why she “lied”?

After all, Anita Hill did not seek the spotlight, she was dragged in by Democrats. Don’t say Thomas or Bork. After all, I don’t know how many books have been written to attack Clinton and Obama. Many more than attack Bush or any other Republican president. Heck, there were a number of books which attacked Obama before he was elected (and maybe, as most one that attacked McCain).

He just had to go and spoil his whole speech:

And ask yourself, about this and so many other things: if so many people consistently refuse to see the world your way—on matters of justice and policy and politics and history and fact—is it because they are selfish and perverse and willfully ignorant? Or might it be because they are right and you are wrong? OK, have a good day.

Argumentum ad populum – Just because you have the most voices doesn’t mean you are right.

Excellent.

As I posted on another entry yesterday, I sympathize with Ms Thomas’ loyalty toward her husband but the tone of her message was really passive-aggressive. And weird.

Long memory and too much chardonnay (or mimosas)?

And the cover story was good, thank you Michael. This topic is totally relevant. Thomas’ behavior (hers) points to an arrogance that her husband already has shown ample evidence of.

All the attention. You’d think nobody had ever heard of drunk dialing.

Pubic hair on Coke cans, Long John Silver… ah, the golden days of yesteryear. As funny as this story is in a grisly sort of way (wouldn’t you have like to have been a fly on the wall when Justice Thomas came home that day? “You did what?!”), I’m sure the ladies on “The View” already have enough grist for their mill.

Wouldn’t a more enlightening and useful spotlight be one put on Justice Thomas’ rulings on the bench since his confirmation?

Thanks so much for responding to commentary with that helpful information, Michael Crowley, it is always greatly appreciated by this blog’s readers, who may or may not necessarily be aware of the contents of covers of the dead-tree edition of TIME.

Heck yeah, if he has any written opinions on which people can judge his body of work! Something a bit thicker than, say, “Green Eggs and Ham.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/20/AR2010102004013.html?wpisrc=nl_politics
.
I remember watching the Thomas confirmation hearings. Hill is the person who deserves the apology from the totally male participants on the committee that questioned her. Republicans and Democrats were a bunch of sexist, neanderthals.
.
Now, reporters, spend sometime investigating the ethical standards of Scalia and Thomas.

I had to stop lurking to interject: I’m so glad Michael Crowley addressed the comment about the appropriateness of this topic. Why do some of you feel the need to dis the topic, yet post comments in the thread? Obviously, it moved you enough to read it and comment upon it, so it was relevant in some way.

If you don’t like the topic, simply move on to the next one.

No, the point of commentary is to provide immediate feedback to the journalist, so that an interactive relationship is established, and better journalism is the result.
.
It’s not enough at this point in the press’ decline to change the channel and move on, it’s part of our responsibility as readers to help shape coverage so that it’s more usable for us.
.
Technology enables this immediate, two-way conversation, and, given the constitutionally-enumerated role of the press, democracy demands it.
.
That’s the point of commentary. Not only do the pro journalists inform us, but we, in turn, inform them.
.
This isn’t some dog-fighting club, where the pro writers get to toss bloody meat into the pit, and then lounge in the salons, comfortably above the resulting snarls and whines.
.
That’s why there’s criticism, because we’re capable, engaged news consumers, not carnival marks or pit bulls.

Technology enables this immediate, two-way conversation, and, given the constitutionally-enumerated role of the press, democracy demands it.
.
I’m sorry, but I have to ask. I’ve read the First Amendement. And it is eloquent in its brevity, simply — but powerfully — guaranteeing that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press“. I’m wondering where in there is there a stated role for the press? And please don’t think I’m giving a strict constructionist argument here: I just don’t see a defined role for the press in the Constitution. There’s a theoretical role that can be found in other texts (and you could probably argue it’s the driving “spirit” of the press’s explicit inclusion in the First Amendment), but there isn’t an “enumerated role” as you claim.