Patterico's Pontifications

10/20/2010

Virginia Thomas Calls Anita Hill, Anita Hill Freaks Out

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 7:32 pm

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing]

I don’t have much to say about this story.  Basically Virginia Thomas, Clarence Thomas’ wife, called Anita Hill and said:

Good morning Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas….  I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband….  So give it some thought. And certainly pray about this and hope that one day you will help us understand why you did what you did. O.K., have a good day.

Now that seemed really futile on Mrs. Thomas’ part but ultimately it is no big deal.  But look at this passage explaining Hill’s reaction to it:

Ms. Hill, in an interview, said she had kept the message for nearly a week trying to decide whether the caller really was Ms. Thomas or a prankster. Unsure, she said, she decided to turn it over to the Brandeis campus police with a request to convey it the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

“I thought it was certainly inappropriate,” Ms. Hill said. “It came in at 7:30 a.m. on my office phone from somebody I didn’t know, and she is asking for an apology. It was not invited. There was no background for it.”

Um, so she referred it to campus police and even wanted FBI intervention?  For what?  What possible potential criminal offense—indeed so important as to justify involving the FBI—could Ginny Thomas have committed?  I mean, at worst this was just a prank.  Do you call the police if someone toilet papers your tree, too, Anita?  Lighten up.

It doesn’t bear on the controversy that made her famous, but still…  lighten up.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

208 Responses to “Virginia Thomas Calls Anita Hill, Anita Hill Freaks Out”

  1. Took Anita awhile to consider action because she was busy flossing.

    javert (a8a9b2)

  2. I think that the wife of a Supreme Court justice should be more circumspect about her calls.

    That implies no judgment regarding her intent or the response.

    It does, though, imply the ability to exercise common sense.

    Ag80 (743fd1)

  3. Wow. If she’s that sensitive, then I can easily envision her taking some molehill statement by Clarence Thomas and making a mountain out of it.

    norcal (8b89e6)

  4. Good grief, I had forgotten Hill’s book was actually entitled, Speaking Truth to Power.

    Aaron, I think this is far more than just a need to lighten up moment for Hill. She could have very easily deleted the message and moved on. That she didn’t and that she opted to give the message to campus security tells me that she tacitly invited the public into this matter. That said, I see it as a bit manipulative – taking advantage of an opportunity to play the victim and reiterate her innocence.

    She is a professor of social policy, law, and women’s studies – she knew there was no threat, there was no intimidation, there was nothing that was illegal in the message nor anything that would cause her to question her safety. While I agree it was very inappropriate to leave such a message, it’s telling she set in motion the steps to make it public.

    And explain why on earth would campus security turned it over to the FBI? A puzzler.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  5. Anita alleges that Justice Thomas placed a pubic hair on a coke and libs go ballistic, not wanting an ungrateful Uncle Tom on the High Court. Bubba Clinton get bj’s from a much younger subordinate for which proof there is his semen on blue dress and a NOW crone promises she would gladly do Bubba any day because powerful men have voracious appetites that need fulfilling. No double standards from the feminazis. Witness recent whore comments about Whitman from Brown camp. Of course one from the left wondered why Ms. Hill followed Clarence around from job to job either.

    Calypso Louie Farrakhan (798aba)

  6. What possible potential criminal offense—indeed so important as to justify involving the FBI—could Ginny Thomas have committed?

    She directly confronted a perjurer – just once – (i.e. no stalking) with the truth and told her she needed to repent. That alone, to a guilty party, is offensive enough that the truthteller needed to be punished.

    And apparently any tool at hand would do, the more large, scary and punitive the better, especially if the perjurer’s political views tend toward “Government will take care of it” anyway.

    no one you know (72db9b)

  7. She thought no one would ever call her on it, Dana, that never even entered into it, That seemed such
    a ludicrous allegation ,19 years ago, and it continues to be, yet that slander continues,

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  8. Dana

    maybe hill just sucks at her profession.

    I mean not too long ago she had an op ed on the nteeth anniversary of it all, and she explained that she was a really good lawyer because she passed the DC bar exam.

    I am a member of the DC bar. I think if you watch law and order for a few years you could probably pass the test. okay, i kid, but passing the DC bar exam is not hard.

    And mind you, i don’t want it to be hard. i don’t want to tell very many people they can’t practice their chosen profession. but then don’t go bragging to me that you passed it when it is considered one of the true “pushover” bar associations.

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  9. A person with this invitation, who felt righteously violated, would probably get a member (or two) of the press on the line, and call back with the speakerphone. And then explain EXACTLY in a full explanation.

    But someone who didn’t really feel righteously violated would probably call the campus security and FBI.

    TimesDisliker (a066d6)

  10. To be reasonable, I can easily see where receiving a message like this would be jarring. Out of the blue, unexpected, and stirring up a painful season – it would be unreasonable to expect Hill to have no reaction to it.

    But still, it’s interesting to me she did not want and chose not to maintain her privacy in this. Delete the message, don’t respond, keep it to yourself. Easy.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  11. I didn’t see this as inappropriate at all. If Virginia thinks someone wronged her family to that degree, calling them and offering them a chance to make right, after prayer, is perfectly civil.

    I can see why this would set Anita Hill off, though, if she’s particularly twisted internally about it. Referring this to the FBI is simply hilarious.

    Clarence Thomas had a great record. He’s an amazing intellect. And he is constantly given far less than he deserves.

    This man does not deserve to be compared to Bill Clinton, but the comparison is amazing. No evidence, vs a mountain of it. High tech lynching vs brushing aside proven perjury and abuse of power.

    I hope Anita Hill takes Mrs Thomas up on her offer. This may be out of the blue, but I completely understand Mrs Thomas’s behavior. She and her husband are great people who don’t bother acting like elites.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  12. To be reasonable, I can easily see where receiving a message like this would be jarring. Out of the blue, unexpected, and stirring up a painful season – it would be unreasonable to expect Hill to have no reaction to it…
    Comment by Dana — 10/20/2010 @ 8:06 pm

    Very much agreed, and had she called security right away I think I’d be much more understanding of her actions.

    That she waited nearly a week, though, and then decided to call in the people who could make the caller’s life miserable, even after it was pretty clear no further calls were coming from Ginny Thomas, is really strange to me and makes me think she was trying to punish the caller instead of simply protect herself.

    no one you know (72db9b)

  13. Just found out that according to Hot Air’s article on this, Hill was the one who requested that campus security turn this over to the FBI.

    no one you know (72db9b)

  14. You notice that Hill, like Bernardine Dohrn, is NOT a law professor.

    Mike K (568408)

  15. NOYK,

    In that week that she waited, we both know (as women) that she had least told one, maybe two friends about it. And they told a friend, and so it goes. This was not something she wanted to keep private because it presented her with a priceless opportunity to again be the perceived victim. Only speculating but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if her womyn’s studies colleagues encouraged this, too. Victim!

    If Virginia thinks someone wronged her family to that degree, calling them and offering them a chance to make right, after prayer, is perfectly civil.

    The point is, Dustin, it’s not up to Virgina Thomas to call Hill to repentance – it’s up to God to move Hill to that point. Virginia Thomas tried to play God, and that was wrong. If, and when Hill is moved to right her wrong, clear her conscience and evidence a changed heart, she herself would make the move toward the Thomas’s in seeking their forgiveness – not the other way around. I think Mrs. Thomas, who is a proclaimed Christian, usurped her position. She needed to remain trusting that God would work in Hill’s life when and how He chose.

    And seriously, can youimagine it was a phone call that Clarence Thomas encouraged or even approved of? This stirred the waters that had finally calmed. And it served no purpose.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  16. __________________________________________

    Wow. If she’s that sensitive, then I can easily envision her taking some molehill statement by Clarence Thomas and making a mountain out of it.

    Her response was so ridiculously extreme and overdone, that her perceptions of reality have to be quite fuzzy. I now can easily imagine her distorting and twisting a situation she’s in the middle of.

    I say that based on an assumption back in 1992 that she probably was being truthful. After all, her encounters with Thomas occurred when he was single and looking to hitch up. So, as is true of most guys, he therefore was prone to thinking with his genitals instead of his brains. Records indicated that he did rent porno videos on occasion, and another staffer in his office said he sometimes would aim a bit of blue, bawdy humor in her direction.

    Even so, no big deal. And in light of Bubba Clinton and Monica, Clarence Thomas, at worse, comes off like a slightly naughty choir boy.

    I still laugh and snicker when I think of a conversation I had with a leftist several months ago. The guy scoffed at how horrible Thomas was to women. The kicker? He’s a big fan of scroungy Bill Clinton. The two-faced liberal also sneered that Thomas was a “Tom.”

    Such folks of the left are one reason I believe that if 90-plus percent of black America suddenly became truly moderate to rightwing — instead of solidly, mindlessly “progressive” — a lot of liberals would start pining for the era of Jim Crow. Hell, some of them might even start flirting with the idea of putting on KKK robes.

    Mark (411533)

  17. In that week that she waited, we both know (as women) that she had least told one, maybe two friends about it.

    LOL hadn’t even thought of that but of course you’re right. And agree w/ you that Ginny shouldn’t have made the call – human beings can’t open offender’s hearts with a phone call absent God’s timing and grace. But her call IMO wasn’t stalking or FBI level stuff of any kind.

    What I found interesting though was the wording of Hill’s replies: first, the “testified to the truth of my experience” kind of legal/therapy blend wording instead of the more simple and straightforward “I told the truth”. Maybe it’s just my already thinking of her as a perjurer (I listened to all the hearings and she just wasn’t credible at the time) but to IMO that sounded a bit “off.”

    And even more so: “I don’t apologize [what, for anything, ever?]. I have no intention of apologizing…”. Another strange thing to say.

    no one you know (72db9b)

  18. a NOW crone promises she would gladly do Bubba any day because powerful men have voracious appetites that need fulfilling.

    As I recall, Nina Burleigh, Times mag correspondent and fem told women that we should all be on our knees before Clinton to thank him for abortion rights.

    Oh. Wait. Here’s the quote:

    “I would be happy to give him [Clinton] a blow job just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  19. noyk is really persuasive. Anita Hill is flat out acting strangely.

    Dana, that Burleigh quote is amazing. I can’t even snark about it… it’s just so amazing.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  20. “I would be happy to give him [Clinton] a blow job just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

    Comment by Dana — 10/20/2010 @ 8:48 pm

    That was a pretty shocking quote at the time (and not much better now TTYTT). But she and other “feminists” like Gloria Steinem were pretty enlightening about how they saw CLinton’s escapades and how NOW feminists are really just all about abortion and not equal treatment for women.

    no one you know (72db9b)

  21. In that week that she waited, we both know (as women) that she had least told one, maybe two friends about it. And they told a friend, and so it goes.

    That does seem to be her pattern, doesn’t it?

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  22. Anita needed to put some tension back into that mainspring to get that 15-minute clock clicking once again.

    AD-RtR/OS! (3e2169)

  23. Unfortunately Hill has become iconic in the myth of perpetual victimhood, still resonating with women – especially young women looking for their own cause. What’s old is new…

    From Feministing (a leading feminist blog by young women)

    I could tell you a thing or two about how familiar Virginia’s solicitation of an apology is, how it reeks of white condescension and entitlement. But I have no more room in my activism for the Virginia Thomases of the world. All I can think about is how I can generate the endless courage of Anita Hill in myself and all my sisters. I suspect that if I had half of Anita Hill’s courage, it would last me 10 lifetimes of fighting against patriarchy in an employment system that largely only combats discrimination after a complaint has been made. Thank you Anita Hill for taking a stand nearly 20 years ago and for all you continue to do now to stand up for yourself.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  24. My reaction was the same as above. Why is this even news? Ms. Hill’s reaction certainly is unnecessary.

    What bothered me is that the media seems to be taking Ms. Hill’s side. Not that this is a surprise.

    Man do I hate the media.

    Arizona Bob (e8af2b)

  25. Dana – that was remarkable. Feminism really only applies to liberals, conservatives need not apply.

    JD (eb1dfe)

  26. Another amazing quote, Dana.

    ‘Reeks of white condescension’?

    I think it reeks of white condescension to portray Mrs Thomas as a racist. Hello, Mrs Thomas is in love with a black guy. Clarence Thomas is not white just because he isn’t a democrat.

    It also reeks of condescension to pretend Mrs Thomas wants a place in Feministing’s activism. They are not advocates for women. They don’t get to define feminism. It’s entirely possible most women will vote for Republicans in the midterms, after all.

    Anita Hill’s courage was to wait ten years after alleged harassment, when making the charges earned her fame and fortune. It’s hilarious feministing complains about discrimination not being combated soon enough while ignoring that Anita ignored it for a decade.

    Her charges were simply not credible. Where’s feministing when the charges are credible and timely? If they implicate the wrong political faction, they are no-where.

    Virginia Thomas is perfectly entitled to leave a damn voice mail, asking someone to pray about their conduct and follow their conscience. If Anita Hill is so threatened by such a message, that’s not because she’s courageous.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  27. Call a conservative woman a whore, and NOW will endorse you.

    JD (eb1dfe)

  28. Feminism today is about the litmus test of abortion and everything else is secondary. Therefore, even though some conservatives are pro-choice, feminists have to be against conservatives because they are not universally pro-choice.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  29. DRJ -it is interesting that it does not work in reverse. They are uniformly Team Dem, though Team Dem is not uniformly pro-choice.

    JD (eb1dfe)

  30. _________________________________________

    All I can think about is how I can generate the endless courage of Anita Hill in myself and all my sisters.

    LOL. The BS of nitwit “progressives.” The type who’d find themselves perversely sympathizing with the idea of male chauvinism if Anita Hill were a conservative challenging a liberal male. If she were, the writer at Feministing would proclaim:

    “That skank is a self-hating female, sell-out and disgrace to her race!!”

    Then, on another occasion…

    “I just saw Bill Clinton at a fundraiser and my heart swooned! I admire his charisma and compassion!! woof, woof! xoxoxox!!”

    Mark (411533)

  31. This is why the feminists will never recognize the Susan B. Anthony list as fellow travelers. You could share all the same beliefs, views and principles, but if being pro-abortion is not on the list, then nothing else matters any longer and the club is no longer open to you.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  32. Most people had forgotten the spectecle and shamefull debacle of her testimony after all these years but our memories are refreshed as to how mentally unstable and divorced from reality this woman is,another example of what lengthes a sick person will go to get some attention.She had to make a big deal out of a simple message to grab some attention to her unremarkable life.

    dunce (b89258)

  33. Anita Hill, winner of the overreaction of the year award.

    Icy Texan (3578a8)

  34. Trying to see it from Hill’s perspective, she probably couldn’t tell for sure whether or not it was really Mrs. Thomas, and over the years since the hearings Hill has almost certainly received threats.

    I can see why she would involve the police, to be safe. I don’t understand though why she needed to go to the press.

    Nels (3e56d7)

  35. One thing that was overlooked at the time of the Anita Hill teapot-tempest is that Hill is supposed to be a lawyer. Frankly, if I were in trouble, I wouldn’t want a lawyer who got upset so easily; I’d want a tough bird who could deal with just about anything.

    Technomad (414683)

  36. Comment by Calypso Louie Farrakhan

    This is still the funniest commenter’s name ever posted here, IMHO.

    Dmac (84da91)

  37. Nels

    i am sure she has gotten lots of threats.

    But how is this a threat?

    How can this even be interpreted as a threat?

    I mean its not even particularly stalkerish, given that her office number is given out online.

    http://www.brandeis.edu/facguide/person.html?emplid=e69d2f368b67d963832f9d1d8a5b8a07c6e976d5

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  38. anita hill should
    feel shame. it was Ginny Hill
    not Long Dong Silver

    ColonelHaiku (1bc82e)

  39. her name anita
    and perfume no sweeta than
    back in Ninety One

    ColonelHaiku (1bc82e)

  40. hat tip to Rod “The Mod” Stewart.

    ColonelHaiku (1bc82e)

  41. I still like Scalia a bit better than Thomas, but both drive libtards insane. Whatever happened to Martin Luther King’s advice that we judge people on the content of their character. I don’t look the color of the Thomases or Hill, but questioned Hill’s motivation all those years ago striving to keep Conservative Thomas off the high court.

    Funny how my tax dollars go to support politically correct NPR which just fired Juan Williams for not toeing the PC line. Williams was showing common sense to the terrorist threat of Muslims. I can respect libs like Williams and fellow fox panelist Marta. How is it Faux news is singled out for being biased, but in the Obama/Soros pocket PBS,NPR, CBS, MSNBC, etc. are considered fair and balanced by the Left? And of course Soros is a swell guy to buy 100 reporters to pursue “enterprise journalism” for NPR? Jajajajaja.no bias there

    Calypso Louie Farrakhan (798aba)

  42. I thought she referred it to security because she thought it was a prank call.

    imdw (150cd7)

  43. #13

    It’s jarring because it confronts at the core of her life; which is now assembled around alie and cloaked in victimhood.

    She makes a good living as long as she stays “the victim”.
    If she recanted? she’d never draw a paycheck again

    SteveG (cc5dc9)

  44. #5 says all that needs to be said on this matter.

    Torquemada (a8a9b2)

  45. Comment by Dmac — 10/21/2010 @ 5:50 am

    Isn’t that cribbed from Rush?

    AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a)

  46. It’s anybody’s guess as to why Virginia Thomas would want to re-hash her husband’s shame for a new generation.

    It’s been 19 years. Let it go.

    If I were Hill, I’d have told the cops, too, and the media, to dissuade folks from doing this kind of thing in the future. Ginny won’t be quick to call Hill again with her disingenuous claptrap.

    My view is that if Ginny believed Justice Thomas’ version of events in the first place, she wouldn’t need anything from Anita Hill, apology or otherwise. Couples therapy, anyone?

    But I give Ginny credit: Rehashing the incident has done the public service of bringing back to mind this classic video:

    A dashing young Orrin Hatch and Clarence Thomas discussing Long Dong Silver.

    http://gawker.com/5495456/americas-funniest-congressional-videos-orrin-hatch-saying-dong

    Thank you, Ginny Thomas, and thank YOU Orrin Hatch! :)

    Myron (6a93dd)

  47. Myron

    So you want the police… to discourage Ginny Thomas, from speaking?

    I mean do you generally support using law enforcement to pointlessly harass people who exercise their constitutional rights? I have yet to hear of any law that even was potentially violated by the call.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  48. 45…the maroon has spoken. of course leftards see no double standard at all and are the most hypocritical, self-righteous, holier-than-thou assclowns on God’s green earth. Free speech for me but not for thee.

    Calypso Louie Farrakhan (798aba)

  49. Anita Hill making something up 10 years after the not-fact is clearly Clarence Thomas’ shame.

    JD (2e7078)

  50. I love Myron’s version of events. Virginia actually believes Anita Hill’s uncredible and failed smear attempt.

    I seem to remember Myron forgiving non-BS excesses, such as Ted Kennedy’s, because we’re all human. Of course, his real point was that it’s forgivable because Kennedy was a successful democrat. So it makes sense he would hate Thomas, a successful conservative, without evidence.

    All that matters to him is someone’s politics. Clarence Thomas do what Myron wants, and that’s the end of the analysis.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  51. Aaron: How was she harassed?

    Myron (6a93dd)

  52. JD: If you think having these details resurface after 19 years showers Thomas with glory, well, you’re wrong.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  53. Calypso: Looks all you’re good for is name-calling, which is to say you’re not good for much. Was there a point in there?

    Myron (6a93dd)

  54. myron

    how is she harassed?

    Well, if you aren’t suggesting harrassment, then why do you think calling the police will “dissuade” her from having the temerity to call her?

    I mean none of you liberals can even name a crime that has been committed, or potentially committed by the call. calling the police was clearly an overreaction.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  55. Dustin: I’m surprised you don’t trip over all the assumptions you’ve laid out. Your argument is based on fiction. Where did I express an opinion on Thomas’ actions and whether they disqualify him for the court?

    Myron (6a93dd)

  56. So, Myron is cool with Anita Hill lying. SHOCKA. And, somehow her making something up reflects poorly on Thomas, rather than the person doing the lying. Interesting construct.

    JD (2e7078)

  57. Aaron: It’s funny to hear you guys preach about alleged “harassment” when you were all quiet as church mouse or actually backing police when t hey arrested Henry Louis Gates in his own home for talking. So who’s the blind partisan here?

    A call from the police, if Ginny even received one, is not on that level.

    As someone else has pointed out, someone who can actually see the other side, Hill has doubtlessly received threats before. She did a logical thing to protect herself.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  58. And that should have been ” …quiet as church mice.” It was plural blindness.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  59. JD: I don’t think she was lying, though it’s a SHOCKA that you think she is.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  60. Headed to a late lunch, then I have work to do.

    I know I’m the entertaining one on this thread, with my refreshing, non-group-think opinion, so I’ll try to check back later to see if anyone said anything relevant, and will respond accordingly.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  61. Where did I express an opinion on Thomas’ actions and whether they disqualify him for the court?

    Comment by Myron —

    ?

    What are you talking about?

    Was I wrong that you praised Ted Kennedy despite noting his major lapses, because he was good for the democrat cause?

    If so, it’s reasonable to see why you condemn Thomas (And you absolutely do in this thread) because he’s so powerfully bad for your causes.

    All that matters to you is someone’s partisanship.

    You said you thought it was great if the police scared someone out of free speech. That’s some weapon’s grade partisanship.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  62. Congratulations to everyone for giving Moron what he seeks most…
    Your attention!
    If you ignore it, it will leave.

    AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a)

  63. That throw-away about Gates is an aggressive partisan ideological lie, Myron. I love how that twatwaffle swoops in, spits out it’s predictable leftwing blather learned in his JournoList circles, and then tries to claim some faux superior high ground. This is all from someone who is involved in the media. Shocking that the media skews the way they do with his kind of thinking.

    JD (2e7078)

  64. myron

    so, when called on your jackbooted advocacy of police harrassment, your response is… look over there.

    Oh, and btw, Gates did a little more than talk. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/henry-louis-gates-jr-police-report

    but don’t let the facts get in the way of your analysis.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  65. “Facts to a Moroon are like Kryptonite to Superman!”

    AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a)

  66. Congratulations to everyone for giving Moron what he seeks most…
    Your attention!
    If you ignore it, it will leave.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS!

    AD’s right. Some people are trollish on accident in virtue of their obnoxiousness. Some just want attention and to screw up threads, like Myron.

    The charges against Anita Hill, that she baselessly smeared a qualified Court appointee for personal gain, is serious. Myron isn’t comfortable with that being discussed.

    Why do the left go to such extreme lengths if the Republican is a minority? They really freaked over Estrada, too. Harry Reid has gone out of his way to smear Thomas, one of our wisest Justices, as “an embarrassment,” and when pressed for an example, said Scalia’s Hillside Dairy dissent was much better written than Thomas’s, even though Scalia didn’t write one. BTW, Thomas has a succinct point that a negative commerce clause is constitutionally baseless and can’t strike down a state law. There’s nothing embarrassing about it.

    So why does democrats go so much farther in their attacks on minorities?

    According to Thomas:

    “People feel free to say about me what they think about lots of blacks,” Thomas told me. “Because of the heterodox views I’ve taken, they have license to say it about me with impunity.”

    In other words, democrats haven’t changed much, and turn off the filter when they think they can get away with it.

    I’d go a step further. It’s not just that Reid is a racist, but that democrats are afraid of minorities getting role models that left the progressive plantation. There was great fear that Thomas would be the Chief Justice. Can’t have that. Better to have Obama style role models… coke-heads with no experience, elevated not on the content of their character, Republican-style, but because of allegiance.

    Let’s not lose sight of the fact that Anita Hill’s accusations were extremely flimsy and untimely. The attempts to portray her as courageously stepping in to quickly combat discrimination is transparently meant to shift attention away from the fact that she did the exact opposite.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  67. Moron’s MO is always the same – spout off about nothing relevant, then claim to be late for “a very impotent meeting,” and scurry away.

    Dmac (84da91)

  68. BTW, the pun was wholly intentional.

    Dmac (84da91)

  69. 42. I thought she referred it to security because she thought it was a prank call.
    Comment by imdw

    – And? “Unsure, she said, she decided to turn it over to the Brandeis campus police with a request to convey it [to] the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” You don’t feel that this is an overreaction?

    Icy Texan (b49138)

  70. Myopic spittled:
    46. It’s anybody’s guess as to why Virginia Thomas would want to re-hash her husband’s shame for a new generation.
    – Do you think that he’s ashamed of anything? Do you actually think that ‘a new generation’ is paying any attention to it? or is it mostly those of us that watched it back in the day?

    It’s been 19 years. Let it go.
    – ‘Move on’, Maroon?

    If I were Hill, I’d have told the cops, too, and the media, to dissuade folks from doing this kind of thing in the future. Ginny won’t be quick to call Hill again with her disingenuous claptrap.
    – So, what you’re saying is that you hope the cops will intimidate Ginny into silence, even though she did nothing at all that can be considered illegal. Nice.

    My view is that if Ginny believed Justice Thomas’ version of events in the first place, she wouldn’t need anything from Anita Hill, apology or otherwise. Couples therapy, anyone?
    – Gee, someone asking for a public apology from a person that made inflammatory accusations in public? Heavens!

    Hill has doubtlessly received threats before. She did a logical thing to protect herself.
    – 1) Do you have ANY proof that she has EVER received a threat? 2) In what way does this message constitute a threat?

    Icy Texan (b49138)

  71. elevated not on the content of their character, Republican-style

    I think that’s a partisan overstatement. From what I can tell, the leadership of both parties, particularly in Congress, is focused above on else on who can raise the most money for other partisan candidates.

    And I think it would be difficult to argue with a straight face that Newt Gingrich was elevated on the content of his character.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  72. Icy Texan, I agree that Mrs. Thomas did nothing illegal (and I’d even say nothing which was morally wrong), and that Mrs. Hill overreacted and should not have called the police.

    But I find it odd. I mean, it would never occur to me to out of the blue call up someone who did me wrong nineteen years ago and request that they apologize. It’s so seriously odd that I’m having a hard time understanding it – whereas I’m having a much easier time understanding Mrs. Hill’s overreaction.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  73. But I find it odd. I mean, it would never occur to me to out of the blue call up someone who did me wrong nineteen years ago and request that they apologize. It’s so seriously odd that I’m having a hard time understanding it

    It is surprising. In particular because she did not publicize the event (And took no steps to in the week after the call before Hill went to the media). If she had publicized it, I’d say she was trying to gain attention for her political advocacy and her website.

    as it stands, I guess she wanted to do this for a long time and was just compelled to one morning. Her husband is an amazing man who deserved and deserves a lot better than he’s gotten, and I understand the idea of a futile hope to fix some of that.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  74. “– And? “Unsure, she said, she decided to turn it over to the Brandeis campus police with a request to convey it [to] the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” You don’t feel that this is an overreaction?”

    By her? No. Campus police probably had no idea what to make of it either. CYA and move it up the chain.

    imdw (3ac9fb)

  75. aphrael, I’m not sure that ‘understanding’ and ‘overreaction’ go together.

    Icy Texan (b49138)

  76. “…And I think it would be difficult to argue with a straight face that Newt Gingrich was elevated on the content of his character.”
    Comment by aphrael — 10/21/2010 @ 11:43 am

    That requires an expansive view of what MLK,Jr. meant by “character”, which I believe is the correct interpretation of his words.
    TBS, Newt became, first, Minority Whip, and then Speaker, due to his intellectual efforts, and the concomitant fund-raising; his personal peccadillos were not a negative in the environment of The Hill, as they were probably more the norm than the exception.

    AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a)

  77. “…it would never occur to me…”

    You’re not in the public eye, and see the slings and barbs directed at your Spouse almost every day in that DC cesspool by those on the Left.
    Also, it’s probably been a burr under her saddle for a very long time, and she finally decided to pluck it out.

    AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a)

  78. Icy Texan: on the contrary. I know that I am guilty of overreacting from time to time; I think it is a human quality to do so, and I would hold in shocked disbelief the claim of the man who says he never does.

    I can understand reacting more strongly and stridently than a situation warrants, because I’ve made the mistake myself, and will probably do so again.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  79. aphrael, in no way am I defending the decision of Mrs. Thomas to do what she did. It seems, to me, to be a useless gesture. BUT, Anita Hill’s overreaction is just silly. If she wants to retain the relative anomymity and obscurity under which she has lived for quite awhile now, then she’s going about it poorly.

    Icy Texan (b49138)

  80. You’ll get no argument from me on that.

    I think my feelings can be summarized as:

    “Mrs. Hill, wow, I can understand being flummoxed by this, but that’s a dumb way to respond.”

    “Mrs. Thomas, what were you thinking?”

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  81. Dustin said: “(And you absolutely do in this thread)”

    Show me where I said Thomas’ actions disqualified him for the SC job. You’re conjuring things out of thin air. You’re better than that. What are you, channeling JD?

    Myron (6a93dd)

  82. Aaron @64: Gates did not put his hands on anyone. He insulted the cop’s mama, but is that arrestable in your world? The cop was at HIS house and could have left at any point once he saw things were secure. Recall he was there to investigate a break-in. Why do you think the charges were dropped so lickety-split?

    If Ginny Thomas got a call from the authorities it is not harassment but basic police work.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  83. Aaron: The whole premise of your post, is off, by the way. This is due to blind partisanship and nothing else. Reverse the parties and you’d be on the other side — that’s for certain.

    You seem to suggest that Hill is over-reacting.

    But here goes a single woman, living her life. She has no doubt been threatened since the hearings. She gets a call — out of the blue — of someone who she doesn’t know claiming to be the wife of Clarence Thomas.

    Now, she is well aware that much of the vitriol she has received — as evident on this thread — is from people upset over the hearings. It is more than reasonable for her to think this bizarre call is a matter for the police to look into. I think she’d be crazy not to.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  84. If Ginny Thomas got a call from the authorities it is not harassment but basic police work.

    Myron, you have moved the goal posts.

    You want Ginny to be dissuaded from completely lawful speech, by police. Of course this isn’t what happened, because your wishes are horrible.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  85. Dustin: Being offered a contrary opinion is challenging, but it’s weak to try to dismiss it as troll-ery. You’re JD again. Tighten up, soldier.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  86. Myron, insult me all you like. I don’t see much reason to reply to that.

    Troll.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  87. That is all the media-type has, Dustin.

    JD (eb1dfe)

  88. In case anyone didn’t already know, Moron’s an expert in just about everything. After all, he works in journalism, and those shopper weeklies don’t get printed all by themselves, you know.

    Dmac (84da91)

  89. Remember how BarckyCare willnreduce the deficit because they say so?

    JD (eb1dfe)

  90. If Ginny Thomas got a call from the authorities it is not harassment but basic police work.
    Comment by Myron — 10/21/2010 @ 12:54 pm

    – And what ‘basic police work’ is this, pray tell?

    Icy Texan (b49138)

  91. Talk of apologies and prayer should terrify anyone, Icy. You would have to be a rabid partisan to think otherwise.

    JD (eb1dfe)

  92. Myron

    > Gates did not put his hands on anyone. He insulted the cop’s mama, but is that arrestable in your world?

    Um, you can arrest a person for screaming and ranting in public. And the cops do have the right to investigate a possible crime without the guy ranting at him.

    > The cop was at HIS house and could have left at any point

    Proving you didn’t read the arrest report. He was leaving, but the man kept following him ranting and screaming. He was ultimately arrested for disturbing the peace.

    > Why do you think the charges were dropped so lickety-split?

    Racial politics. The man said he was a powerful man and what do you know, they let him off easy. He even got the President of the United States to take his side. Man who asserts that he is a powerful man, that the cop doesn’t know who he is screwing with, is treated leniently. Gee, I can’t figure out why.

    > If Ginny Thomas got a call from the authorities it is not harassment but basic police work.

    Except you also wrote this:

    > If I were Hill, I’d have told the cops, too, and the media, to dissuade folks from doing this kind of thing in the future.

    You believed that the police could be used to dissuade her from evilly trying to reconcile with a person she believed did her husband wrong. But you don’t call it harassment? Well, then why do you think it would dissuade her?

    > This is due to blind partisanship and nothing else. Reverse the parties and you’d be on the other side — that’s for certain.

    “You are clearly unfair because… um, I am really sure you are!”

    > You seem to suggest that Hill is over-reacting.

    I didn’t suggest she was. I was explicit about it.

    > But here goes a single woman, living her life. She has no doubt been threatened since the hearings.

    Come to think of it, if she makes her number that available, I am guessing this is not a big problem for her these days.

    > It is more than reasonable for her to think this bizarre call is a matter for the police to look into.

    Again, why? There is no threat even implied in the message. And if she is so a-scared of these phone calls, why does she leave her number on the website for the whole world to find?

    Seriously, does she call for every message? Every wrong number?

    Oh, and if she was so scared by all of this… why did she wait a week to report it? I mean if you felt threatened wouldn’t you report it asap?

    You know seriously, I work at a health care agency. One night, one of our nurses got a call where the caller referred to her by a racial epithet and said that he was going to “blow up her building.” When she reported it to the office, we called the police and the wonderful Maryland cops told them that a mere threat was not a crime, and generally couldn’t be persuaded to give a crap. (By the way, it should come as no shock to anyone that after 9-11 it is always illegal to threaten someone with a bomb—or to pretend to—those cops were idiots.) On that scale of things, yep, I would say Hill is waaay overreacting (but the cops in Maryland were waaaay underreacting).

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  93. Aaron has a point. Anita Hill probably wasn’t really getting death threats and living in fear. I doubt her phone got many calls about this or any kind.

    That’s a common lefty assumption… the right is just crazily trying to harass and scare everybody. Yeah, I get it, Anita Hill is courageous just to have a voice mail service. Give me a break.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  94. Dustin

    Well, hell, i pissed off millions of muslims the world over. I could count the death threats on one hand. i was kind of disappointed, really.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  95. AW…don’t schedule a trip to Karachi, it didn’t work out well for Dan Pearl.

    AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a)

  96. AD

    How about mecca. should i go there?

    meanwhile, that big AQ idiot can dine at the white house in safety. sigh. We are entirely too politically correct in this war.

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  97. A Jew in Mecca?????

    Oh, sure! And be sure to visit the Black Mosque.
    It’s to die for.

    AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a)

  98. Hmm, I’m Inspector Columbo (IC), and I have a question on something i can’t figure out, that maybe you can help me with, Why would Mrs. Thomas do this out of the blue?

    AW at #8: … not too long ago she [Hill] had an op ed on the nteeth anniversary of it all, …

    IC: You mean to say it wasn’t out of the blue, that there had been a recent mention of it that may have been the inciting factor?

    That is what was said at #8

    IC: Well, that makes sense now, not necessarily good sense, but sense. So, going after Mrs. Thomas is just a little more excusable than laughing at Palin mentioning 1773, or law students that can’t tell the difference between the Constitution and a letter to the Danbury Baptists- written by the same guy anyway. I’m no Constitutional scholar, but I’ve known about the Danbury Baptist letter a long time. Maybe they should ask President Obama, being a Constitutional scholar, to catch the train up to Delaware and explain it to them.

    BTW, is this what happened??

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  99. Wasn’t Juan a supporter of Thomas? Seems like an amazing coincidence that the Thomas attack by NPR Totenberg anniversary and this firing happen so closely, especially since this just recently made news.

    JD (eb1dfe)

  100. @ aphrael:

    But I find it odd. I mean, it would never occur to me to out of the blue call up someone who did me wrong nineteen years ago and request that they apologize. It’s so seriously odd that I’m having a hard time understanding it – whereas I’m having a much easier time understanding Mrs. Hill’s overreaction.

    I wonder if with every anniversary all the emotions and anguish and frustrations they experienced during the hearing once again make their way to the surface causing Clarence and Virginia Thomas to re-live it and slog again through the trauma?

    And I wonder if this one time, Mrs. Thomas let those emotions get the best of her?

    Because of her husband’s position, she must have had to practice the serious discipline of biting her tongue and keeping her own counsel. But maybe this year when she set the wheels in motion by entertaining the very first thought of calling Hill, she was unable (actually, unwilling) to rein it in. Maybe it actually felt good to give into the drive.

    She had to know there would be fallout and that it would seriously impact her husband (I just can’t see that he would have approved of this), but perhaps a recklessness overtook her, and she fully gave in.

    I can totally understand that.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  101. Myroon need to be
    arrested and beaten for
    justice to be served

    ColonelHainku (1bc82e)

  102. Neither one of the Thomases, suffer fools gladly, both he on the Court, and her with the Tea Party,

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  103. Dana-

    My point at #98 was asking whether it was not out of the blue, and not simply at the anniversary, but AW seems to say that Hill had written an op-ed piece “not too long ago”. Maybe it wasn’t Thomas who “brought it up out of the blue”, but Hill. Maybe AW will weigh in again with more specifics.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  104. MD,

    The only op-ed by Hill in recent years that I was able to locate was in the NYT 2007. It was her response to the release of his autobiography, I Am My Grandfather’s Son.

    The op-ed, The Smear This Time, refuted claims Thomas made about her in the book and she also defended her testimony.

    Because it was in response to his book being released and in part, about her, I don’t see it as out of the blue but rather a reasonable response from a self-perceived victim. What better place than on the welcoming pages of the NYT?

    And, because it was 3 years ago, it doesn’t seem likely it would compel Mrs. Thomas to make the phone call this week.

    I tend to believe it was something more internal and personal.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  105. I agree that something 3 years ago would not make sense to be the direct motivation for an action last week, that’s why I’m eager to see A.W. clarify it. I’m not sure I would call 3 years “not that long ago”.

    I agree, if there is not a more readily identifiable trigger, that it seems strange she would do it out of the blue.

    But no one in MSM is interested in actually getting the facts and reporting on the story.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  106. MD – Myron, above, showed how interested in the truth the media/journolist types are. Not in the least. To expect them to commit an act of journalism is silly ;-)

    JD (eb1dfe)

  107. AD

    > A Jew in Mecca?????

    Um, not a jew, actually. I mean not by any defintion, not even close. At most random yiddish words will pop out of me now and again.

    But then alot of people make that mistake. its cute when its a commenter on a blog. not so cute when its a terrorist with a rusty scimitar.

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  108. Sorry, Old Bean! No offense meant. It’s the Aaron thing that sent me awry.
    BTW, remember the Indy antidote for scimitars, rusty or otherwise:
    .45cal pistol across the square!

    AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a)

  109. No, i took zero offense. I didn’t think you meant anything by it but a common assumption about my name. I get it often enough. Ironically although Aaron is considered a jewish name, of the 6 other Aarons i have met, only one has actually been jewish. I mean that is not scientific but i wonder if it would hold for the population at large…

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  110. _________________________________

    According to Thomas:

    “People feel free to say about me what they think about lots of blacks,” Thomas told me. “Because of the heterodox views I’ve taken, they have license to say it about me with impunity.”

    The “people” that Thomas is referring to really should be narrowed down to mainly liberals, be they white, black, Latino or otherwise. But merely par for the course since the phoniness of liberals when it comes to their supposed tolerance or non-bigoted attitudes is in keeping with the phoniness of their supposed generosity and humaneness.

    Mark (411533)

  111. Black robe and swill
    I believe Anita Hill
    Judge will rot in hell
    It’s the song I hate, it’s the song I hate

    imdw (3ac9fb)

  112. Why, after 19 years and the fact that the Thomases won this – he is on the Court after all – and Hill’s name is mud with a lot of people, does Virginia Thomas feel the need to do this?

    JEA (90eb9c)

  113. Imdw lurve getting its hate on. Maybe he will post somebody else’s address, and links to their home. Maybe he will hate on some joooooooos. Maybe he cannot read, much like JEA. The trolls sure are getting agitated. Nov2 is going to be ugly. They will not lose gracefully.

    JD (b49131)

  114. You didn’t listen to Sonic Youth in the 90′s, but you did get to use an anti-semitic slur, so all is good.

    imdw (6dba22)

  115. Hill was right, Thomas a harrasser.

    “The Clarence I know was certainly capable not only of doing the things that Anita Hill said he did, but it would be totally consistent with the way he lived his personal life then”

    –Lillian McEwen, a former Senate Judiciary Committee lawyer who dated Clarence Thomas from 1979 through the mid-1980s, told The Washington Post in an interview that Hill’s long-ago description of Thomas’s behavior resonated with her.

    W (9df40f)

  116. JD – imdw just can’t quit you. I think you have another BFF like timb.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  117. William Yelverton buggers goats. It is true. And his kitteh.

    JD (4aa811)

  118. JD shows us his intelligent conservative commentary. Maybe someone can explain why he is so jealous?

    W (9df40f)

  119. Did you ever file that felony slander lawsuit, you mendoucheous cretin? Jealous? I am more likely to be jealous of a dead slug than of your pathetic dishonest miserable taxpayer funded existence. Now, scurry along and plagiarized someone again.

    JD (4aa811)

  120. W

    so let me get this straight. When he was seeking to become a supreme court justice, she stayed silent.

    But when she was putting together a memoir–that no one would read unless she put this kind of stuff in–she decided to tell the truth.

    Sorry, that has meager credibility with me. Not to mention that the nature of her story is dubious. So basically she is saying he would to her about how he was constantly sizing up women for sex, to her, his then girlfriend. Do you think that is a conversation most men have? “Wow, that woman has such big t–s, you should see them!” Does that pass the smell test with you? Because it doesn’t with me.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  121. AW – your are like Quixote in your attempts to engage profoundly dishonest interlocutors.

    JD (4aa811)

  122. Why, after 19 years and the fact that the Thomases won this – he is on the Court after all – and Hill’s name is mud with a lot of people, does Virginia Thomas feel the need to do this?

    A nagging sense that Anita Hill, Angela Wright, and (now) Lillian McEwen weren’t making it up?

    Kman (d25c82)

  123. so let me get this straight. When he was seeking to become a supreme court justice, she stayed silent.

    ….at Thomas’ urging. They were friends.

    Kman (d25c82)

  124. These trolls sure are agitated. Look at what they want to talk about, as opposed to how miserably their policies have failed and how they are going to get clobbered in Nov.

    JD (4aa811)

  125. So according to his bio, he was married till ’81, when he separated, he was divorced in 1984, so when did this relationship take place

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  126. _______________________________________

    Hill was right, Thomas a harrasser.

    By the standards of Bill Clinton, Thomas sounds like a piker. I’d describe him as being more like one of the millions of guys throughout modern society who’ve been influenced by its increasingly bawdy, 1960s-free-love, Howard-Stern-ized nature. Or, regardless of era and culture, male nature in particular.

    But don’t most liberals believe that when it comes to human sexuality — certainly in the case of gays (who technically, in many cases, actually are bisexuals) — we can’t help be but who we are? That we’re born the way we are? And that if it feels good, do it?

    Washington Post, October 22:

    Today, McEwen is 65 and retired from a successful career as a prosecutor, law professor and administrative law judge for federal agencies. She has been twice married and twice divorced, and has a 32-year-old daughter.

    …She has written a memoir, which she is now shopping to publishers.

    …To McEwen, Hill’s allegations that Thomas had pressed her for dates and made lurid sexual references rang familiar. “He was always actively watching the women he worked with to see if they could be potential partners,” McEwen said matter-of-factly. “It was a hobby of his.”

    McEwen’s memoir describes her own “dysfunctional” family in the District and, ultimately, a long legal career. She charts how she developed an “inner self” to escape the chaos of her childhood. Her story also includes explicit details of her relationship with Thomas, which she said included a freewheeling sex life.

    “He was obsessed with porn,” she said of Thomas, who is now 63. “He would talk about what he had seen in magazines and films, if there was something worth noting.”

    McEwen added that she had no problem with Thomas’s interests, although she found pornography to be “boring.” According to McEwen, Thomas would also tell her about women he encountered at work. He was partial to women with large breasts, she said. In an instance at work, Thomas was so impressed that he asked one woman her bra size, McEwen recalled him telling her.

    McEwen, a Democrat, acknowledges growing increasingly irritated with Thomas’s conservative jurisprudence and his penchant for casting himself as a victim in the Hill controversy.

    Through the years, McEwen said, she has remained reasonably friendly with Thomas. On two or three occasions, she said, she brought friends to his Supreme Court chambers where they sat for long conversations.

    ^ I find it interesting that Thomas apparently was very open about his awareness of other women and was into kind of a Howard-Stern type of shtick. So much so that he told McEwen about asking Angela Wright (who testified against Thomas at the Senate hearings) about her bra size.

    Mark (411533)

  127. JD and Kman are the ones who are ‘certainly agitated’. Of course they haven’t answered the question.

    Why’d she call Hill in the first place?

    Did any of you even have a thought about Anita Hill in the last decade (I know you all have difficulty with the concept of ‘thought’ so I’ll give you a pass on that one).

    Par for the course here.

    As is the third-grade, brain-damaged behavior when somebody asks a question you don’t like or pokes a hole in your little theories.

    JEA (90eb9c)

  128. The anniversary of the smears clearly had no bearing on the timing, JEA. None. But, let’s be clear, no matter when she did this, you would have got the vapors. The timing is of little importance.

    JD (4aa811)

  129. It is now time to drunk dial all our 90′s regrets.

    imdw (842182)

  130. ___________________________________

    A nagging sense that Anita Hill, Angela Wright, and (now) Lillian McEwen weren’t making it up?

    Regardless of one’s politics, a full awareness of human nature — and human sexuality in particular — is better than naivete. I’d say most liberals and a percentage of conservatives (referring to the ones, primarily women, who are oblivious to the idiosyncrases of male sexuality) are guilty of such naivete.

    BTW, the increasingly over-sexualized aspect of modern culture is merely going to get worse with so many on the left wanting everyone to shed tears over, and be so accommodating of, male homosexuality.

    Mark (411533)

  131. Why’d she call Hill in the first place?

    None of us know, since none of us are sitting in Virginia Thomas’s head.

    Let me ask you this: does it matter? If so, why?

    Some chump (4c6c0c)

  132. Read “Blinded by the Right” if you want a case study on how Anita Hill was demonized and smeared by the right with lie machine….well OR…. if you want a case study on how Clarence Thomas’ supporters took care of a suspiciously timed attack against their nominee by giving her a taste of her own medicine….depends on your point of view really.

    I heard Thomas’ old girlfriend has written a kiss and tell book, maybe SHE called Anita Hill????!!! or called Thomas’ wife and talked her into doing it (no idea how). Free publicity! Just in time for the book!!!!

    EdWood (c2268a)

  133. JEA’s crazy.

    His reasoning, that I haven’t been thinking about this much, is a completely irrational attack on the wife of the person smeared.

    Anita Hill has never presented compelling evidence of her claims that she buried for a decade. Deal with it. Thomas is probably the victim of a democrat lynching because he’s a prominent black conservative. This isn’t the first or the last time the democrats will do this sort of thing. You can see it whenever Reid opens his mouth to lie about Thomas’s record to call him an ‘embarrassment’.

    The fury here is particularly hilarious coming from folks I recall rolling their eyes at Bill Clinton’s much more serious, and actually demonstrated, abuse and harassment. But then, he’s a white democrat. Women should get on their knees before him, according to NOW.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  134. Yes, combatting a smear is a vicious right wing smear machine.

    JD (4aa811)

  135. I love how Kman’s still at it. Just about every assertion he’s made he has been unable to demonstrate, when called on it.

    Kman says he knows Thomas was urging Hill to bury her story. Of course he made that up. Her claims were incredibly weak. The claims of these courageous women who want to talk about their experience in 1979, only to speak out now that they have a book to sell? I say they are not particularly credible (and that’s assuming Kman’s characterization of their claims is valid… I realize he’s lying again, and one of his examples notes she has never seen such harassment herself but didn’t like Thomas’s personality).

    But Kman will be back, so long as Aaron is making awesome blog posts, to tell us things that aren’t true.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  136. Yes, combatting a smear is a vicious right wing smear machine.

    Comment by JD

    Good point.

    I am sure some people did say rude things about Anita Hill. I guess it’s a little rude to note the fact her calling the FBI in this case is hysterical and stupid.

    But she made huge accusations without evidence, in a way that suggested she was less worried about the problems she either fabricated or experienced, and more worried about power and politics. Noting she had poor credibility was not much of a smear.

    This isn’t like how Blumenthal and Hillary thrashed Monica and others.

    But edwood was smart enough to note this is ‘based on your point of view’. Indeed, if your point of view is that Hill must be telling the truth, I guess it seems like a smear to defend against her claims.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  137. Anita Hill has never presented compelling evidence of her claims that she buried for a decade.

    Well, most victims of sexual harassment can’t present “compelling” evidence — that’s the nature of sexual harassment. Nothing new there.

    However, when several woman — including a friend and ally of the alleged harasser — all corroborate each other about Thomas’ behavior, that is pretty compelling.

    The fury here is particularly hilarious coming from folks I recall rolling their eyes at Bill Clinton’s much more serious, and actually demonstrated, abuse and harassment. But then, he’s a white democrat. Women should get on their knees before him, according to NOW.

    I know you’re engaging in hyperbole, but it gets hard to take you seriously when you do that. Maybe you should speak for yourself, instead of speaking for NOW or democrats or liberals or…..

    Kman (d25c82)

  138. ______________________________________

    folks I recall rolling their eyes at Bill Clinton’s much more serious, and actually demonstrated, abuse and harassment.

    I think that pretty much sums it all up.

    We now live in the era of post-Clinton, not to mention the current era of goddamn-America Obama. Our society has jumped a pretty big shark over the past 20 years, and now even the recent past of the Clarence Thomas Senate hearings seems quaint and innocent.

    I recall the 1990s movie of “An American President,” and the main female character saying something about how the American people wouldn’t accept a president (a single one, at that) who had a girlfriend. Or something like that. In retrospect, that film might just as well have come out during the era of “I Love Lucy” and “Father Knows Best.”

    Mark (411533)

  139. Kman says he knows Thomas was urging Hill to bury her story. Of course he made that up.

    Dustin, prove that I made that up.

    Kman (d25c82)

  140. There was no hyperbole in Dustin’s comment. Call a woman a whore, get the NOW endorsement. They stood right behind Clinton when he harassed and exploited an intern.

    JD (4aa811)

  141. Prove you lied? How about this, prove the assertion you made.

    JD (4aa811)

  142. _______________________________________

    instead of speaking for NOW or democrats or liberals or…..

    Oh, so most liberals — most Democrats — don’t have fond feelings towards Bill Clinton? So a large portion of the left doesn’t admire him and love high-five-ing him, and treating him with kid gloves?

    You believe otherwise?

    LOL.

    Mark (411533)

  143. Prove you lied? How about this, prove the assertion you made.

    I can source the assertion, if you like. It’s right in the WaPo article excerpted above…..

    …although, somehow, I suspect that you’re not interested in sources, facts, etc. as much as you are trying to make liberals look bad and conservatives look good.

    Kman (d25c82)

  144. I can source the assertion, if you like.

    You’ve said this before, but when you ‘prove it’, you usually do so very poorly.

    You’re projecting when you say we’re not interested in fact and “etc”. You’re the one who continues to make stuff up you can’t possibly back up, and it’s because you’re stalking the blogger.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  145. There was no hyperbole in Dustin’s comment. Call a woman a whore, get the NOW endorsement. They stood right behind Clinton when he harassed and exploited an intern.

    Um, I don’t think you know what hyperbole means. That’s okay. We’ll talk about something else and I’ll use smaller words….

    Kman (d25c82)

  146. Dustin, prove that I made that up.

    Comment by Kman —

    OK.

    You don’t have any evidence for it.

    Challenged on this, you have no evidence for it.

    Therefore, you made it up.

    You’re welcome.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  147. You’re projecting when you say we’re not interested in fact and “etc”. You’re the one who continues to make stuff up you can’t possibly back up, and it’s because you’re stalking the blogger.

    I love it when conservatives can make a point by saying “well, you’re [ ] and the reason you do this is because [ ]”

    Seriously, it’s one step up from the playground “You’re a doodyhead”.

    Dustin, you don’t know me any more than I know you. Can we at least agree on that?

    Kman (d25c82)

  148. You don’t have any evidence for it.

    Well, I DO have evidence for it — the article:

    McEwen recalls writing Thomas a short note before the confirmation hearings, curious about what she should say if she were quizzed about their relationship. She said Thomas preferred that she would take “the same attitude of his first wife,” who never talked publicly about their relationship.

    So, right off the bat, you’re wrong. There is evidence that Thomas urged her not to talk.

    Maybe you don’t LIKE the evidence, or you discount it… but there IS evidence.

    Kman (d25c82)

  149. Kmart is above petty partisanship, Dustin. It is a speaker of truth. I haven’t seen it prove that Thomas was trying to get her to cover it up for him yet, because the only “source” for that is the accuser that waited 10 years to make the accusations. The new one waited even longer, therefore proving the conspiracy.

    JD (4aa811)

  150. “I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

    Nina Burleigh, who accused several of the victims of Bill Clinton’s aggression of actually initiating. That’s right. Paula Jones wanted it. That’s me backing up my claims in a way Kman can’t, because I don’t make crap up.

    Here’s the National Organization for Women:

    “As ‘the boss,’ he is responsible for setting the tone for his entire workplace — and he did that with sex,” O’Neill said. “In any work environment, this places all employees — including employees who happen to be women — in an awkward, confusing and demoralizing situation.”

    Oh wait, they didn’t say that about Clinton. I guess this doesn’t apply to him.

    When Burleigh and others accuse the right of seeing sex harassment through the eyes of politics, they are projecting. Badly.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  151. 19 years after the fact, and this recollection comes while she is promoting her memoirs. Very credible. If there is a note, show us. Gawd, these clowns are remarkable. I really enjoyed it’s pompous arrogant sneeringly condescending snark about how we have poor motives, implying that it is above the fray, standard leftist claptrap. And, it isastalker. So actually, kmart, we know quite a bit about you.

    JD (4aa811)

  152. Kmart is above petty partisanship, Dustin.

    Ya know, I actually think he is, JD.

    I think we’re enjoying a little internet drama, and Kman is simply reacting to AW. But regardless, his point that Anita was silenced by Thomas’s urging is pretty lame and pretty unfounded.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  153. “…McEwen recalls writing Thomas a short note…”

    Yet, there is no independent,contemporaneous evidence of this note:
    she didn’t discuss it with a friend, keep a copy, make a notation in her diary (does she keep a diary, she is a lawyer), just her “recollection”!

    Is there something in the water in Southern-Maryland that creates such self-centered, narcissistic behaviour in otherwise “normal” people –
    of course, “twice married – twice divorced” is toward the fringe of “normal”, and would indicate some sort of relationship disability.

    AD-RtR/OS! (89a0a7)

  154. Wait. You asserted:

    Women should get on their knees before him [Clinton], according to NOW.

    and your evidence for this is

    (1) some woman who has no affiliation with NOW

    and

    (2) a quote from the NOW president that you say doesn’t even apply to Clinton?

    I wish my court opponents were this unskilled.

    Kman (d25c82)

  155. Horsepuckey, Dustin. His sophistry is reflexively partisan. It would not bug me if he would admit it. But pretending to be above the fray like he does while being predictably leftist is tiresome.

    JD (4aa811)

  156. ____________________________________

    There is evidence that Thomas urged her not to talk.

    Yea, regarding his girlfriend and ex-wife. But in his dealings with Anita Hill, too? If so, that would suggest the relationship Hill had with Thomas — years after the fact — was so close and cordial she’d seek out his advice and consent in the first place.

    That would say more about her than about him.

    Mark (411533)

  157. Kman,

    “(2) a quote from the NOW president that you say doesn’t even apply to Clinton?”

    That was the point. Of course it doesn’t apply to Clinton, for NOW. The rules are different for democrat politicians.

    Thanks for conceding I’m right again, by trying to be obnoxious.

    As for Nina, she’s been writing in support of NOW for 20 years. NOW doesn’t list their contributing members, so I’m not sure how you back up your assertion. You don’t appear to even know who “some woman” is, but she proves my point very nicely. It’s just one example of many of feminists, be they NOW presidents or not, their feminism is toggled on and off as a partisan weapon.

    Do you need more evidence that NOW behaves this way? It’s not exactly hard to find any. Unlike your claims, I have no problem backing mine up.

    What’s amusing is that Anita Hill is a great example herself.

    “I think it is a reality that we have to deal with. We live in a political world, and the reality is that there are larger issues other than individual behavior.”

    In other words, Anita thinks politics are important than truth. She said this explaining why this feminist double standard protects Clinton.

    You would play sophist all day if I bothered trying to keep up. You keep losing arguments anyway, because you’re wrong.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  158. Draw a line in the sand. One group goes to one side, with the opposition on the other side. Start shouting insults and project weaknesses on one another. Now start picking up rocks and hurling them at each other. “Liar!” One side yells. “No, you are the liar!” the other side yells. “I know that such and such and such is true, even though there is no evidence.” One side says. “But this and that is what is actually true, obviously, because so and so is a poopy-pants.”

    And so goes another day at the Patterico.com playground. Nobody knows what happened here. Nobody knows if Anita Hill was lying or not. All we know is that Mrs Thomas made a very odd phone call with no apparent reasoning behind it. What a waste of time!

    Chris Hooten (c42dab)

  159. I blame Diebold. A clown from bladblog pretending to be “above the fray” is rich in irony.

    JD (d9926c)

  160. And JD, your “less is more” journalistic writing style is not Hemmingwayesque as you probably might think, since its content is so light and airy. Rather it is just “less,” usually being approx 50% weak-sauce insults, 20% poorly formed sentences, and the remaining 30% possibly being something of substance, although much of that substance is often based on misinformation or lies from other sources. On the plus side, I don’t think that YOU intentionally lie. Hugs and kisses.

    Chris Hooten (c42dab)

  161. Chris, I was going to welcome you back, but see you have nothing to contribute.

    you’re right… no one here knows if Hill was lying.

    I pointed to a quote of hers though.

    “I think it is a reality that we have to deal with. We live in a political world, and the reality is that there are larger issues other than individual behavior

    That, in context, is saying politics trumps the reality of a sexual harassment claim. Additionally, Hill reacted to the call in hysterical manner. FBI?

    You say there’s no ‘apparent’ reasoning behind the call. A lot of people think the reasoning is perfectly obvious. Virginia Thomas wants Anita Hill to pray about her actions, and offers Hill the opportunity to clear her conscience if she decides to. You’re right that is odd. It’s also understandable, isn’t it?

    Or is partisanship really pushing you so far from compassion that you don’t understand this?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  162. Go diddle yourself, you disingenuous goat buggerer.

    JD (04ebf2)

  163. Chris Hooten, I’m glad JD mentioned bradblog. Did you follow the Kimberlin discussion?

    I wonder if you did, because you come here and instantly start a heated battle of insults, as though you are afraid of an actual dialogue.

    Anyway, did you follow the discussion? I remember you complaining about comment moderation, so you should take particular interest.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  164. See?

    Chris Hooten (c42dab)

  165. See?

    Comment by Chris Hooten

    Chris, your 158 was just a string of insults. Most of your 156 was a string of insults at the whole blog. I’ve seen some quotes of yours that are pretty nasty.

    Why are you so angry? Did you really come here just to insult people, or did you want to talk about Anita Hill?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  166. I haven’t wasted my time here for weeks. You guys still think there was no Clinton surplus, that ACORN was an evil organization, and that there were not any racists in the tea party (they were all plants, lol) Basically this forum operates as a liberal-bashing chat room. True debate is checked at the door. It is a shame, really, but that is what the participants have decided they want this blog to be.

    Chris Hooten (c42dab)

  167. This blog is chock-full of nastiness of all kinds. Pot -> Kettle -> Black

    Chris Hooten (c42dab)

  168. Bye all, don’t waste your time, and I won’t waste my (virtual) breath. When this site becomes a modicum of measured and respectful debate you can run home and cry to your mommies. But for now it is just, well, hypocritical.

    Chris Hooten (c42dab)

  169. oops, becomes=contains

    Chris Hooten (c42dab)

  170. BTW everyone always says I am “from bradblog…” Yet I rarely post there, either… Once you believe something, though, it is hard to let it go, I guess. Labels you attach to people are much easier to attack than actual views held by the people. Attack the messenger, not the message. Fox News and Republicans are great at that. Too bad they can’t govern worth a turd.

    Chris Hooten (c42dab)

  171. If it is such a waste of time, and it knows going in that it has been, and probably will be again, why does it confirm Einstein’s thesis on insanity by repeating the same action over and over expecting a different result, when it knows that result is never to be?
    Unfortunately, it does not even provide comic relief.

    AD-RtR/OS! (89a0a7)

  172. Do you need more evidence that NOW behaves this way? It’s not exactly hard to find any. Unlike your claims, I have no problem backing mine up.

    Fine. Then back up your claim: “Women should get on their knees before him [Clinton], according to NOW.”

    A statement from some feminist not speaking for NOW doesn’t support that statement.

    And a statement from NOW which is critical of Clinton doesn’t support that statement.

    In other words, Anita thinks politics are important than truth. She said this explaining why this feminist double standard protects Clinton.

    Hahaha. A red flag goes up for me whenever I read a conservative who writes: “In other words…”

    Guess what? I can read what Anita Hill wrote. I don’t need your “translation” because that’s just spin.

    Chris Wooten:

    Basically this forum operates as a liberal-bashing chat room. True debate is checked at the door. It is a shame, really, but that is what the participants have decided they want this blog to be.

    I think so. I was lead to believe otherwise a while back. It’s sort of “You’re stupid and wrong” and “Oh, yeah! PROVE it!”. I don’t mind the snark or sarcasm — that comes with any debate — so long as there is some sort of point underneath.

    Dustin, I think, could offer true debate but he’s too busy doing dances in the end zone and trying to be amaateur psychiatrist (“you’re saying this because deep down, you know that…”) Ah, well.

    P.S. Also, they like the words “sophist” and “mendacious” a lot here. Whaddup with that?

    Kman (d25c82)

  173. Apt descriptions are sometimes quite apt.

    AD-RtR/OS! (89a0a7)

  174. Using the term “it” instead of “he” is an attempted form of dehumanization of the messenger. BTW The “contract with America” was almost identical to the more recent “pledge to America”. Does that fit Einstein’s thesis? How about extending all the tax cuts, heck extending all Republican fiscal policy? How about even voting for Republicans in November? Why would one think we would get different results with the same exact policies? How about deregulation of the markets? Good bye.

    Chris Hooten (c42dab)

  175. The brilliance of conservatives is brilliant! Sheesh.

    Chris Hooten (c42dab)

  176. BTW everyone always says I am “from bradblog…” Yet I rarely post there, either… Once you believe something, though, it is hard to let it go,

    Fair enough. I apologize. Bradblog, that blog that consorts with a convicted bomber and professional con artist to rake in tremendous donations for a cause it covers in the most unserious way imaginable, is a place you and I both have left comments.

    My impression was that you really dug that place, but it’s not fair for me to lay that on you. It’s a very ugly thing to be associate with bradblog, now, and I apologize again.

    Hahaha. A red flag goes up for me whenever I read a conservative who writes: “In other words…”

    Guess what? I can read what Anita Hill wrote. I don’t need your “translation” because that’s just spin.

    Yeah, OK, you hate conservatives. I get it. You’re still wrong. NOW covers for democrats. It’s a simple point. While I do not literally believe they were giving him blowjobs, and I realize your style of ‘debate’ is to mis-characterize endlessly, I think any reasonable person can admit this double standard exists. Nina, who has favorably written about NOW and democrats and feminism for 20 years, is a great example of this double standard.

    Your defense of this is amazingly dishonest.

    And a statement from NOW which is critical of Clinton doesn’t support that statement.

    Wow, what a distortion.

    To help you, I quoted Anita Hill JUSTIFYING that double standard. I’m not surprised you’re exploding about something else, now. That’s how a lot of people like you act when your argument takes a fatal wound.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  177. “Comment by Chris Hooten — 10/22/2010

    166.Bye all, don’t waste your time, and I won’t waste my (virtual) breath.”

    Rather like partipating in a ‘discussion’ with she who demands the last word. And another, and yet another,…

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  178. I missed a couple of Chris’s comments.

    He absolutely cannot bring himself to talk about the actual topic, except to say it’s not worth talking about. Half a dozen comments full of nothing but insults?

    Thanks Chris Hooten, for proving JD right. He had you pegged earlier than I did. I tried to have a civil discussion with you several times, and apparently you were nothing but a zealot harridan the whole time.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  179. JD just calls people names. Even a broken clock is right 2 times per day.

    Chris Hooten (c42dab)

  180. I will defend bradblog, though. I don’t know where you got your fantasies about associations with convicted bombers and con artists and tremendous donations being raked in. Or the idea that being associated with bradblog was a “bad” thing. I merely was stating that making that association with me would appear to not be accurate at this time. Nice of you to add all that other malarkey. I had to pop in about that, sorry. I am as much a regular commenter here as at bradblog. I don’t think I’ll waste my time anymore, though. Nice to see you all for a day…

    Chris Hooten (c42dab)

  181. JD gives me a hard time sometimes as well. Sometimes it’s even useful if you have a sense of humor about it.

    I’m sensitive in my own way. I hate to let a lie just sit there, unanswered, which is why trolls bait me so well.

    But Chris, you react to isolated incivility with spam incivility. You’re on record now being pro-insulting, aren’t you?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  182. The idea that crissyhooten does not know about bradfreidman’s cozy relationship with his buddy the bomber is laughable.

    JD (f89659)

  183. Wow, I really didn’t know that. My reaction is meh. I don’t know that much about velvetrevolution. Guilt by association is weak. Don’t you have anything better than that on Friedman? No? I didn’t think so… That is basically useless drivel. Attack the messenger, not the message. Yawn.

    Chris Hooten (c42dab)

  184. You can’t even use ‘the free as a bird, guilty as sin’ with Kimberlin, it does resemble what Riehl
    and McCain uncovered about one of Palin’s most twisted persecutors, and the Soros front group that
    supported him.

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  185. That criSsyhooten looks at what Kimberlin did and says meh shows, quite clearly, what kind of person he is. That it makes little to no impression on you is frankly, remarkable. And sad. And pathetic.

    JD (f89659)

  186. I don’t care about Kimberlin, I don’t know who he is, except for what I just read, and I don’t know that much about velvetrevolution, but you want me to condemn Friedman because of that guy? Meh. Weak guilt by association. Only in the kool-aid addled brain could one think that their co-founding of an umbrella election integrity group somehow makes poo stick to Brad Friedman. Weak. One would think if Brad was such an awful character, one could easily paint him as such without partaking in such poor debating tactics. Did Kimberlin do all that stuff? Hell, I don’t know. It certainly has nothing to do with Brad. Come on, surely you have something better than that.

    Chris Hooten (c42dab)

  187. JD, I made no comments about what Kimberlin was convicted of. Was I disturbed at what I read about him? Yes. Does that reflect on Brad at all? No.

    Chris Hooten (c42dab)

  188. Guilt by association is what one uses when they have nothing else to use, and the audience is not sharp enough to reject such tactics (or even notice them). (See Fox News)

    Chris Hooten (c42dab)

  189. For someone that claimed to not wish to waste his virtual breath and was leaving, you sure have a crapload of nothing to say.

    Show of hands – who here has ever partnered with a convicted domestic terrorist and drug smuggler and alleged killer?

    For such a non-issue, why would bradfreidman ban people and block comments pertaining to this issue?

    JD (d9926c)

  190. Show of hands – who here has ever partnered with a convicted domestic terrorist and drug smuggler and alleged killer?

    A good question for the White House, too.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  191. I have my doubts that it was Mrs. Thomas who made the call because Justice Thomas and Hill kissed and made up (figuratively) about 15 years ago when they made a joint appearance at a law school graduation. Some place in South America (Washington and Lee?)

    nk (db4a41)

  192. nk,

    Did you e-mail me this morning?

    Karl (83846d)

  193. I was told by a third party that his email was hacked, Karl.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  194. My email, including my password, has been hacked. Ignore anything you get from Hotmail under my addie. I am not in Manchester, I am in Chicago, and I’m fine financially.

    And, Hotmail sucks. MSN sucks. I cannot find anyone to at least delete the account.

    nk (db4a41)

  195. The important thing is you are okay. You had a lot of worried friends.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  196. Yeah, I suspected as much. I checked with others who didn’t get the e-mail.

    Karl (83846d)

  197. It has to have been a Hotmail employee.

    I have been thinking about it, and I have not been Sarah Palined. I gave them no information whereby they could guess my password.

    It has to have been someone with direct access to my password.

    Hotmail employee.

    nk (db4a41)

  198. Maybe, or it could be that you aren’t the only one who got hacked. Maybe the system got hacked.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  199. However, it’s probably safe to say it had nothing to do with Virginia Thomas or Anita Hill.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  200. Lillian McEwen breaks her silence about Clarence Thomas.

    The retired prosecutor, law professor and administrative law judge for federal agencies details her intimate relationship with the Justice between 1981 – 1986 as part of her memoir.

    After the news of Mrs. Thomas’ phone call to Anita Hill, McEwen decided to break her silence of two decades and talk about her relationship with Thomas. She doesn’t sound like an angry or bitter woman with an axe to grind, but she does bring up issues and claims re Justice Thomas that are troubling.

    “I have nothing to be afraid of,” she said, adding that she hopes the attention stokes interest in her manuscript.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  201. Waiting 2 decades to splash a little smut while you are pushing memoirs seems odd. Who the hell pushes a manuscript of their memoirs when nobody knows who they are? Other than the President.

    NPR Lady (eb1dfe)

  202. “His reasoning, that I haven’t been thinking about this much, is a completely irrational attack on the wife of the person smeared.

    Anita Hill has never presented compelling evidence of her claims that she buried for a decade.”

    Unlike a lot of the people who post here, Dustin, I think. And I would like to know how asking a legitimate question constitutes an ‘irrational attack’.

    You’re telling me she’s been stewing about this all of these years and can’t let it go, even when it’s been out of the news for years.

    It was Justice Thomas who brought this back up in 2007 with his book, a book he didn’t have to write, after years of it laying forgotten. Now, 3 years later, his wife shows she still can’t let it go, even after all this time. It’s still eating at both of them after all this time, despite the fact it hasn’t been brought up by anyone, anyone other than the Thomas’.

    JEA (229171)

  203. Yes, it is completely irrational to think that you get to speak for the Thomases and question whether or not they should be allowed to still be bothered by Hill’s smears. Another leftists canard tucked in there about how JEA is a thinker, and the rest are just reactionary bigots parroting the Koch brothers talking points. This from the one that claims to want non-partisan discussion, but just happens to defend every silly leftist issue.

    JD (b49131)

  204. Nobody other than the Thomases ever mentions this. Nobody. The recent anniversary of it was not mentioned. Nobody is pushing memoirs with new decades old recollections of this. You claim and hysterics are demonstrably false, and clearly disingenuous.

    JD (b49131)

  205. jea posted
    will someone hurry and call
    J Edgar Hoover?

    ColonelHaiku (2166fa)

  206. Colonel found no thrill
    on Hootenberry Hill but
    did find hair on Coke®

    ColonelHaiku (2166fa)

  207. Colonel know her name Anita
    but her story not smellin’ sweeta
    since when he saw her on stand

    ColonelHaiku (2166fa)

  208. “ah say… ah say, Miss Anita…
    did you, oah did you not
    have yoah offah of grits n’ gravy
    spuhrned by Mistah Thomas?”

    – Senator Foghorn Leghorn(D)

    ColonelHaiku (2166fa)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6863 secs.