And because Newt didn’t violate any rules, the reporters’ mention of him and failure to mention Hillary demonstrates ignorance, sloppy reporting, or bias. 6/5 and pick 'em.
Sua
Which was exactly my point in bringing up Hillary. She violated no ethics rules, and while I think it was a less-than-swell thing to do, I think you can make the case that there was nothing untoward whatsoever about it.
I don’t think, however, that an objective reporter can bring up the issue of book deals, and hearken back to Newt but not even mention Hillary. It’d be like discussing “1990s black celebrity pedophiles” and not mentioning Michael Jackson because he was never convicted. The piece is a partisan polemic, which is fine; but it also tells me her motivations for writing about it at all.
I think Clarence Thomas is the single most contemptible person in public life today, bar none.
His hypocricy, his stupidity, his dishonesty, all are manifest on so many levels, it’s just ridiculous.
Consider the ironies, layered upon each other like so many loads of compost, festering and emiting a foul stench from the bottom up:
–he’s head of the EEOC, solely by virtue of affirmative action, yet he:
-
becomes prominent on the political scene based on his opposition to affirmative action;
-
sexually harasses his underling, Anita Hill, when he is the figurehead of an agency dedicated to stop such harassment.
–he’s nominated for Supreme Court Justice and, during the hearings:
-
plays the “victim card” to the absolute max, whining pathetically about being the victim of a “high tech lynching,” when it’s obvious to any normal person that he is, in fact, perjuring himself under oath;
-
hypocritically claims that he’s “never thought about Roe v. Wade,” and displays a level of legal ignorance that would be shameful in a 2nd year law student;
-
can thank the democrat Joe Biden for cutting a deal with Bush whereby Biden excludes any evidence of his obsession with hardcore pornography dating back to his law school days in New Haven, of where there is ample evidence in the form of credit card receipts from Porno book stores.
His performance as a Supreme Court justice is utterly pitiful and pathetic, especially given the fact that Bush I cynically chose him to replace a genuine black hero of the civil rights movement, T. Marshall, for the sole totally repugnant reason that Thomas is a black reactionary, which is to say, affirmative action in it’s most offensive and degraded version.
I have heard Thomas speak at several extreme right wing forums, including the Federalist Society, and his act consists of NOTHING BUT telling his stupid little personal story of victimhood, even as the “moral” of this story is that victimhood is a non-position.
Thomas is so utterly clueless that he literally cannot think of a single thing to say that does not amount to a cynical exploitation of the very idea the repudiation of which is responsible for him being anything other than a third rate government bureaucrat.
lout, can we put you down as undecided? 
Clearly, as regards Ms. Hill, he has overlooked the Biblical injunction against using your staff to comfort your rod. Verily.
One of my friends was a lawyer in the Bush White HOuse.
She told me that the running joke was that if you wanted to learn about the sleaziest porn flicks available, just follow Clarence home from work.
This was before he was nominated for the Court.
Y’know, I was born into a pretty decent life, in part by virtue of the fact that I’m white. It’s hypocritical for me, therefore, to renounce they system that aided my success.
Looks like it’s back to slaving and lynching for me.
[exit, whistling “jimmy crack corn”]
Does this mean he’s going to put all his witty repartee into the book, rather than using it during oral arguments?