Christine Craft posts frequently at a media blog, and I respect the 16 years’ care she’s given to a father with advanced alzheimers. In-home care, and other things that have nothing to do with this post. Or for that matter, your call into the station.

Thank you for posting a recap of that call. I agree with your points then and now here.

I’m not sure why you’re posting to say it’s not your question to answer when I asked no question of you or anybody else. But when it comes to he said-she said cases, reflexively casting doubt on the person that holds political views opposite yours is not what I would call “backbone” or “conviction.”

He is a fraud.

TCB

She’s got backbone and conviction, but as to why her Paula Jones theory gets tangled up with basic workplace harrassment is not my Q to answer.

Lemme tell y’all a little story about Ms. Craft, the lawyer, the talk host, and former TV anchorwoman who struck a blow for feminism and against sexual discrimination and “age-ism” in her successful suit against a Kansas City TV station. KMBC-TV canned her from the news desk, telling her the management’s surveys said she was “too old, too ugly, and not deferential to men (her book of that title is available on Amazon.com starting at $.01).”

Circa Winter 1995-6; I was driving up the Peninsula back up to S.F. late one Friday night when I heard Ms. Craft on KGO make light of the sexual harassment suit of Paula Jones against then-POTUS Bill Clinton. Remember what Jones — in an Arkansas government administrative position — alleged her boss Clinton had done in the workplace; he inappropriately touched her, exposed himself to her, and invited her to kiss his erect penis. Not long after the near-unanimity of females in the media believing law professor Anita Hill’s allegations against Clarence Thomas, they were laughing out loud at the rural and twangy Paula. Gloria Steinem wrote an editorial in the New York Times saying Jones’ account, if true, was nothing more than a “clumsy pass” by Clinton (I guess “clumsy” means “half-naked” in Steinem’s world), and implied every male boss was entitled to one such incident before it should be termed “harassment.” Clintonoid hatchet man James Carville had famously made this remark regarding Jones: “Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.”

That particular evening I was tuned in, Ms. Craft, in discussing what kind of person she perceived Jones to be, went Carville one better, calling her “an opportunist slut.”

I took the nearest offramp and went to a pay phone and called her on the air. I told her I could not believe I just heard a feminist icon that won a famous sexual discrimination suit call a plantiff in a sexual harassment suit a “slut.” Craft didn’t back off a bit, saying that she knew women like Jones and Gennifer Flowers, that they cheat on their husbands and essentially let every horndog at the workplace know they’re at their beck and call. Before ending the conversation with a “click,” she evaded my inquiry as to why Jones didn’t get the benefit of the doubt that Anita Hill got despite Hill’s complete lack of evidence and credibility problems (having sought another job under Thomas after the date she later testified she had been harassed).

Now, to the present. Ms. Craft wrote:

I don’t trust anyone (especially judges) who don’t have a good sense of humor and an appreciation of funny ,offbeat, yes even sexual art..so there!

I’m sure there’s a point in there somewhere. But even you must agree that Kozinski has, in effect, admitted that he shouldn’t be trusted to preside over the Isaacs case in offering himself up to be passed over.

….Wait…What am I talking about? Hah! I almost forgot whom I was addressing! Of course you don’t have to agree. You only believe what you want to believe.

So there!

Kozinski was forced to issue an apology to me; however, it does not end the case. I’ll post links to follow-up articles on Kozinski’s entirely self-inflicted judicial misconduct crisis. If Patterico is interested in posting the follow-up complaint, I’ll send him a copy.