He made her feel “uncomfortable” by talking about stuff. But not so “uncomfortable” that Hill didn’t follow him around for much of her career. Oh, and she waited ten years or so to come forward with all this stuff.
Funny how the Dems didn’t think that this was enough to keep someone from becoming president of the United States, huh?
Don’t make idiotic comparisons, and don’t try to duck the issue by bringing up the KKKlinton bugaboo. This ain’t about him. The simple fact of the matter is that there were serious accusations against Thomas, accusations that deserved to be addressed. They were established to be enough without merit that Thomas was approved by the Senate.
But you have not shown that the accusations were completely unfounded, you have not shown that they were entirely a fabrication of the eeeevil Dems, and you have not shown me your twenty bucks.
- Cite? What president are you talking about? Please provide documentation that this president had any history of sexual harassment allegations before the election.
2, The president is an elected position, not appointed. It’s not up to the Democrats to 'allow" or disallow anyone from becoming elected.
I’m betting that if Roe is overturned during this Congress, they pass a Federal antiabortion law (after killing the filibuster for good and all), and the Supremes rule that it’s Constitutional under the Commerce Clause.
Oooo nice side step.
Your position was that the Thomas issue was ONLY about “telling an off color joke joke”.
I suppplied a cite to show you that you were in error with the facts of the accusations.
Can you even admit that you were wrong about that description of the Thomas controversy? (Again, I’m not talking about whether Hill or Thomas were truthful, but the NATURE of the debate).
Not as true as you might think. While some of those groups do a lot of fundraising they tend to keep it in house.
Here’s the top ten list of 2004 contributors to the DNC:
- Kerry For President
- University of California
- Goldman Sachs
- Time Warner
- Microsoft (no foolin’)
- Lehman Brothers
- Baron & Budd
- Viacom
- Morgan Stanley
- JP Morgan
Top 20 list from opensecrets.com
For fun here’s 2002:
- Saban Capital
- Shangri-La
- Newsweb Corp
- AFSCME
- Laborers Union
- Communications Workers of America
- American Federation of Teachers
- Service Employees International Union
- Kusher Companies
- Ameriquest Capital
Odd split there, eh? Weird.
Heck, I checked the Democratic Party, the DNC, the DCCC, and the DSCC and didn’t see Soros, Moveon, NOW or NARAL listed in the top 20 of any of them.
So let’s not get carried away, here. Both parties play the contribution game. It’s the way it works. But the biggest contributors will play both sides to make sure they have access when needed.
But in '03 he stated that that is not his personal belief, but the opinion of the client he represented at the time. I don’t think he’s planning on doing away with RvW any time soon. Tentatively, I think he looks good. If he’s good I hope he gets confirmed.
Absolutely. I’ll admit that Anita Hill, after following Thomas around for her entire career and waiting a decade or so, eventually began levelling totally unsubstantiated and unprovable claims against him on the eve of his nomination to the SC. She came up with a bit more than just “telling an off-color joke,” so, yes…I was wrong about that.
QUOTE]Of course not. The Dems will say that some “troubling” information has recently come to their attention. I guarantee you someone will come forward to tell the media that the guy is a serial rapist.
[/QUOTE]
And when your ridiculous prediction does not come to pass, where do we go to collect on this “guarantee”? 
Remember, it is the Republicans who have perfected the art of character assassination. See Rove, Karl, Swift Boat Liars, Atwater, Lee, etc.
That doesn’t address the political impact of such, RT.
You know me. I follow the GAME.
Should RvW be overruled by whatever means the landscape changes damn fast. And that may work to the good for the democrats. I’ll be curious to see if it forces some ‘put up or shut up’ in the republican ranks.
I suspect that the attitude of silent middle-america is one of discomfort with abortion but no strong desire to see it eliminated as an option. The electoral impact of seeing that tested is what would interest me.
Interesting. I’ve been to the Shangri La a few times. Very cute girls dance there!
Nothing of the sort.
What he’s on the record for is making such an argument on behalf of his client, which happened to be President George H.W. Bush. Roberts was an Assistant Solicitor General at the time.
This was the position of the administration, and thus this was an argument advanced by a lawyer working for the administration. It should not be seen as an indication of the man’s personal views.
You’re dodging, buddy. There’s no evidence for a strong influential contributee position among the groups you singled out.
In fact, many of the names on the list above appear one both the DNC AND the RNC lists. Microsoft, for one.
Actually, your list of relatively unknown donors (sort of) supports my original thought…it’s the fact that Move-On and Soros are louder than the top ten DNC donors that may force Dem leaders to give their opinions a bit more weight. Or something like that.
Because this has happened with oh so many previous Supreme Court nominees. :dubious:
Honestly, I don’t put much stock in the polling on abortion. It seems more driven by the fact that aside from the activists on both sides, most people find the subject icky and don’t want to deal with it overmuch. The vote for keeping things the way they are is just that: favoring the status quo, basically leaving well enough alone. But that doesn’t mean that if the status quo changes and a new paradigm is established that suddenly all these people are going to demand things go back to the way they were. They might just as easily support the new status quo.
No, generally being loud means you get some media play (giving good quotes helps, too) but it doesn’t honestly get you actual influence. What it CAN do is allow more extreme positions to be tested in the political marketplace to see if it has traction (‘legs’, in the jargon). If it turns out it does then the more mainstream can pick it up and run with it. Otherwise they have the option to ignore.
You keep changing issues, not to mention continuing to strew your path with red herrings. Why are you being so slippery? It’s ok to admit you made untenable claims, really.
Why does one have the feeling that any evidence would do that?