Political discussion and ranting, premised upon the fact that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Parker cannot be 'set straight' on a topic like this. She's the sort of woman who wants to be the special girl in the room that the boys like better than those stinky other girls. The Hill controversy, in her mind, was very simple: Conflict between a man and woman in which the man is not advocating for a feminist position; therefore, the man is right.
I concur with the main thrust of your point - but I do find it somewhat amusing that the people who thought it was "no big deal" when the President lied under oath are in a tizzy over this . . . and many of the people who thought it was a huge deal when the President lied are now silent . . .CWD
Can you identify at least one such person?From what I can see, the people who were frothing over Clinton - including the Republican majority in Congress who deemed his lie a sufficient basis for impeachment - have rolled over into a passive, "scratch my belly" pose on the issue of Clarence Thomas. Is there a one of them who has suggested that Thomas should be treated at least equally, given that perjury before Congress in order to win confirmation should be more offensive to Congress than a lie on a collateral issue in a civil lawsuit? How about among the various right-wing pundits who railed against Clinton - where can I find one who is even raising an eyebrow at Thomas?That is to say, the situation appears to be the opposite of what you describe.
Which is a politer way of saying "nice try". ;)If anyone were screeching that Thomas should be impeached over this, you'd have a point, but nobody is. Thomas's wife dragged the whole thing up again (likely because she was fishing for book material), and Parker predictably jumped on the bandwagon by insisting that lying under oath about sex is only bad for people whose last name begins with "C".
. . . and many of the people who thought it was a huge deal when the President lied are now silent . . . (Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O’Reilly). . . people who thought it was "no big deal" when the President lied under oath are in a tizzy over this. . . (The Editors at Huffington Post, Eliot Spitzer, and Earl Hutchinson)CWD
Your first point is in agreement that advocates of Clinton's impeachment don't care about Thomas?"The editors at Huffington" - can you attach names? I have no idea who they might be. Arianna Huff'n'puff, herself, was certainly in a tizzy over Clinton - but she was a hardcore Republican at the time.Who is Earl Hutchinson (yes, I did Google his name and look at his Wikipedia profile, but I have to admit that it still doesn't ring a bell), and where can I find the statements he is making either against Thomas or, back in the day, in defense of Clinton? And who, if anybody, paid attention to him, then or now?I wouldn't be surprised if Eliot Spitzer, given his predilections, was opposed to Clinton's impeachment. But what statements are you looking at, then or now, to support your position? I'll admit up front that I don't watch his show, but I have yet to see them.
"Your first point is in agreement that advocates of Clinton's impeachment don't care about Thomas?" - That was one of the points in my post and you asked me to give you names. Those are all people who were howling for Clinton's head but have been remarkably less in favor of prosecution this time around . . .You and Mythago asked for "one" you got a set supporting both points.CWD
You provided two names and a nebulous reference to 'editors' to support your case, but again I have yet to see any statements from either of the named individuals that would substantiate your point. In relation to the first guy, yeah, I suppose it's possible to find marginal individuals that few to no people have heard of, let alone care about, who may be taking such a position, if that's the point you were trying to make. But I would still like to see his statements.