Well, I agree that he’s calm. It’s easy to be calm when you don’t invest yourself in anything but quibbles. I recognize that the fate of the free world just might hang on the question of whether Virginia Thomas is tone deaf. I recognize it, but if that’s all it takes to end the free world? We deserve ending.
Call me crazy*, but I suspect that if Hilary Clinton had gone around calling Richard Mellon Scaife, Paul Weyrich, David Brock, etc and leaving messages on their answering machines demanding apologies, there’d have been a different reaction.
Or, for that matter, had Virginia Thomas merely vented about a liberal conspiracy to try to derail her husband’s nomination without mentioning specific names, there’d have been a different reaction now, as well.
*Just don’t call me tone deaf.
If Ms. Thomas had claimed that there was a vast left-wing conspiracy responsible for her husband’s accuser’s actions, I would agree that that was not tone deaf. Had Rodham Clinton called up any of her husband’s accusers personally and patronizingly urged them, like children, to think about what they’d done and then apologize, I would agree that it was tone deaf.
These two situations as they actually exist are, unfortunately, not comparable.
There ya go. I also agree that it’s entirely possible that she’s not tone deaf, *if *her intentions were shit-stirring. Which it’s entirely possible they were.
P.S. Please please *please *come play in the other thread I keep telling you about. **Morella **is also claiming that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” somehow doesn’t apply to non-citizens in the U.S. (who don’t have diplomatic immunity). I know you can tear this troll to shreds, so won’t you have some apple cider with us?
Gee BRICKER why didn’t you offer the hypothesis that she was telling the truth. Then you actually could have built a case. Her action at the trial and since ,are those of a person who was just doing her civic duty. She took a huge risk ,with no payoff. I wish more people showed that kind of guts and citizenship.
The girl behind door number 2 , is appearing on CNN tonight. I think Larry King.
I know you have some sort of fetish over the phrase “regardless of politics or what actually happened”, but you’ve, for a second time, ignored my argument that regardless of politics or what actually happened (try to remain calm), it is tone deaf due to … well, shit, just re-read what I just posted above … which was the second time I posted it, and I don’t feel third would make a dent, so fuck it.
That does seem like a perfect thread for **Bricker **to make like the Parse-inator…how about it, Counselor? Clearly **Morella **either needs to be parsed out or could really use the help…
I was responding to suggestions that they were. I can certainly understand your reluctance to sign on to that view now that it looks like it might help me, though.
The following posts suggested the comparison:
I looked at that thread briefly, saw no dearth of people correctly applying the law to the facts, and concluded my involvement would be superfluous. But since you are practically peeing your panties for my participation (a pungent alliteration, if not a literal one) I will add a few words of cumulative support.
Right. Bryan Ekers and I were positing a situation in which Ms. Clinton now decided to start calling Ms. Willey and Ms. Jones demanding an apology. I would find it nutty, tone deaf, and childish.
No, you weren’t. You were responding to posts that suggested a possible hypothetical, wherein Rodham Clinton called someone up like Thomas did. What you ended up saying, and what I was there replying to, was, “And yet I search in vain for the ‘tone deaf’ condemnations of Ms. Clinton when, as First Lady, she claimed a vast right-wing conspiracy was responsible for her husband’s accusers’ actions.” If you’ll scroll up, you’ll note that I said that Rodham Clinton making a call like Thomas would be tone deaf. But that’s not what you said, right there. There, you were rolling your eyes because no one accused Rodham Clinton of being tone deaf… when she engaged in completely different behavior from Thomas. In reality. *Not *in a hypothetical.
I’d like it noted that the example I suggested involving Hillary Clinton had nothing whatsoever to do with her “vast right-wing conspiracy” remarks, and I consider it a blatant act of prevarication to suggest so.
But it’s not absurd. One NEVER asks for an apology; it just isn’t done (by rational/decent/non-tone-deaf people). Just like one doesn’t assert that one embodies a specific virtue (asserting that one ASPIRES to a virtue is fine).
Even if an apology is legitimately owed, it is ALWAYS rude, presumptuous and ceding moral high ground to demand one. And it’s tone-deaf (particularly in the case of the spouse of, for better or for worse {hint: worse :p} a Supreme Court justice) to not recognize that.
I wonder if anyone doubts that Thomas told his wife repeatedly that he was innocent of the charges. Perhaps that is where she got the idea. Then her actions are logical. Her husband lied to her and she believed him. So of course she expected an apology. But with the new book, it will blow up in her face.
Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether such a conspiracy actually existed to a scale that could reasonably be considered “vast,” I don’t see where Mrs. Clinton requested an apology from the putative conspirators.
That’s one of the things I like most about you, Bricker; your willingness, when you have been unambiguously bested on a point, to own up to it and take your lumps.
P.S. In light of this specific occasion, please feel free to disregard my post 579, above.
