I kept this headline/abstract separate, as it really hits home on two fronts. The more obvious, of course, is the sexual harrassment angle, currently being revisited in the California recall/gubernatorial race. Should these kind of credible allegations effect the "worthiness" of a government official? Maybe if they were taken more seriously in 1991, we wouldn't have the Supreme Court mess we have now?
And secondly, I'm not sure if many people recall that Anita Hill's sub rosa testimony before the Judiciary Committee was leaked to the press by still unnamed sources who felt the issue should be made public. Funny how, back then, while the leaks were purportedly for the welfare of the nation, it was turned around as partisan maneuvering. Of course, that would never happen again....
EX-COLLEAGUE SAYS THOMAS HARASSED HER
WHITE HOUSE LABELS ALLEGATIONS 'UNFOUNDED' AFTER FBI INQUIRY
Sharon LaFraniere, Washington Post
October 6, 1991A University of Oklahoma law professor told the FBI last month that Clarence Thomas sexually harassed her while she worked for him at the Education Department and at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, according to a report published today by Newsday.
The White House said last night it had thoroughly investigated Anita Hill's allegations and found them to be "unfounded," but Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.) said it may be necessary to postpone the Senate vote on Thomas's...
As I mentioned a few months back, the combination of the double-dipping economy and controversy surrounding the Robert Gates and Clarence Thomas nominations formed a political "Perfect Storm" in October, 1991, which saw Bush's very healthy poll ratings plummet by year's end. In late September, the pundits thought Bush unassailable to Democratic attack and a shoo in a year later. By December, Pat Buchanan was announcing his primary challenge for the Republican nomination.
Deja vu deux...
Posted by MB Williams at October 2, 2003 09:32 PM | TrackBack