I will start this in the Pit because it will lead to bad language and politics and such, but in a general way - what good could she possibly think would come from this? She has said she “was trying to extend an olive branch” with a voicemail that includes “I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband” - regardless of politics or one’s personal beliefs about that past event, how tone-deaf can an individual be?
It seems to me she’s only “tone deaf” if you begin the analysis by assuming Ms. Hill was telling the truth.
Let’s not. Let assume, instead, that Ms. Hill completely fabricated her accusations, made them up out of whole cloth, in an effort to derail Thomas’ nomination, without caring what effect her lies might have on Thomas personally, or on Thomas’ family.
And, having failed to prevent Thomas’ confirmation, she has for nearly 20 years refused to acknowledge that her testimony was fabricated.
Why is it “tone deaf” for Mrs. Thomas to ask for an apology under those circumstances?
Lemme guess: now that Hill has said “No,” Mrs. Thomas will turn this into an election season partisan issue, saying liberals like Hill* aren’t willing to compromise.
If Ms. Thomas was aware that Ms. Hill would, under no circumstances, be swayed to confirm that position, it would still be a silly action regardless of her (Thomas’) beliefs about what was really true. I have never heard the slightest indication that Ms. Hill had changed her position - quite the opposite - and her comments related to this event reinforce that. Such being the case, why the heck would Ms. Thomas think now would be a good time to say “c’mon, just between us - 'fess up”?
All I got is that, given Thomas’ hardcore Tea Party involvement, this action is calculated to stir her base…
Is it already time again for the Democrats and Republicans to swap positions on what counts as a publicity-whoring slut who is actually to ugly to be hit on? Where do the years go?
Because Anita Hill has never, ever, ever indicated she ever fabricated anything in regards to Clarence Thomas. Asking for an apology when you know the person thinks they didn’t do anything wrong, is completely tone deaf.
But - arguendo - Hill knows she fabricated her testimony. If she “thinks she did nothing wrong,” it could not be because she knows she didn’t lie, but because she somehow rationalized that her lying served some higher purpose, some greater good.
If that’s the case, it’s not unreasonable for Virginia to say, in effect, “Look, we both know you lied, and the event is far enough behind us that any greater good in maintaining the lie is past, so how about an apology?”
Whats Thomas supposed to do ,tell his wife the truth after lying in front of America repeatedly? It is good that he got on the court, so Scalia did not have to carry his own golf clubs these last few years.
But if, assuming arguendo, Ms. Hill really did lie and Mrs. Thomas truly believes that she did for the dishonorable purpose of derailing Clarence’s nomination as you lay it out, why would Virginia think that someone who is so dishonorable and who would go to such lengths as to lie under oath for the those purposes would do something as honorable as apologize after 20 years of silence and, in the face of no other evidence, maintaining the same position as she did in her sworn testimony?
Actually it isn’t only tone deaf if you assume she is telling the truth. If you assume she was incorrect in her testimony, but incorrect as a result of error - that she firmly believed her testimony, but that she was mistaken (much as people claim about W and the evidence for the invasion of Iraq, for example) then it would be completely tone deaf to request an apology from her when, to the best of her knowledge, all she has done for the last 20 years is tell what she sees as the truth about a man she truly believes did great wrong to her.
And a possible motive for Thomas’ action can be found in statements by a woman named Lillian McEwan, who is apparently writing her memoir. From the article:
My guess is that Ms Thomas is one of those people who allows things to eat away at her and is incapable of letting anything go. Maybe she needs to grow the hell up.
I’m sorry, but you - not I - were the one that sought to paint her conduct as so unreasonable that “…regardless of politics or one’s personal beliefs about that past event…” we should agree that Virginia Thomas was tone deaf.
Having been called on it, you had a choice. You could gracefully acknowledge that in fact whatever “tone deafness” exists here is predicated entirely on the truth of what happened at EEOC between Thomas and Hill.
Or you could continue to pretend you didn’t try to slip in a paean to the Thomas-is-evil meme by dodging the issue and calling me tone deaf.
Not at all. If Person A obviously holds a set of strong beliefs and Person B asks Person A to acknowledge a wholly different point of view, and does so saying “no offense!” then, regardless of what actually happened, that is tone deaf. QED.
