Friday, February 11, 2011

Let’s look at a contoversial issue and come to a consensus…

I was visiting Tom Seaborn’s blog this morning and thought this post – 

"Why Does Clarence Thomas Get Away With Breaking the Law, As His Wife Shills for Wealthy Right-Wingers?"

was interesting and poised a lot of questions. Because I’m not up on all of this controversy, and don’t know much about the principals involved, I thought I’d throw this item out to my Conservative readers. Like Rose for example. I want to hear any rebuttals to all of the accusations in this article. By now, I know there’s ALWAYS two sides to any story. I suspect this account is slanted left (aren’t I a genius?).

 Journalist Brad Friedman, whose Brad Blog offers a detailed account of the Thomas fiasco, notes that this same set of circumstances would play out completely differently if the shoe were on the other foot. As Friedman told me, "If it were Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg not reporting a million dollars from working for ACORN, the right wing would be all over it and so would the press -- until someone from the Department of Justice agreed to prosecute. The right wing, and eventually the media, would say that Ginsburg should have known the rule of law; they'd be all over her for receiving 'special treatment,' and she'd be gone in a week."

So help me get a full picture and contribute whatever facts you’re aware of to counterpoint the accusations against Clarence Thomas and his wife. I look forward to hearing your comments.


Rose said...

It's an intriguing question. I saw the post on Tom's blog and thought "Oh, brother..." but didn't comment.

I am out for most of the day today, so I'll come back later.

My first comment though would be that if you are going to appoint someone to The Supreme Court for life, you better trust that they are able to put personal prejudices aside and make their findings based on LAW, and on the essential tenets of the Constitution.

And, in that vein, we have certainly seen that this does not necessarily happen - think Bush v. Gore, a decision that should NEVER have fallen along party lines, but did.

This partisan divide that is ripping us apart is widespread.

Anyway - more later, and I hope I can actually add to the discussion.

Tom Sebourn said...

Brad Friedman will discuss this tonight on 1480 am in for Mike Malloy starting at 6 pm Pacific.

He has an update about his blog being taken down last night after the show.
Following last night’s show, the server was knocked off line. At this time, I’m not certain of the cause, and having trouble getting information from my server adminstrator.
While the incident occurred following my coverage, on last night’s show, of the group of “security firms” working to put together a plan for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to attack both my non-profit organizations — which I had written about as well last night — and then the revelation that they were also targeting me and my family personally (both as covered last night by ThinkProgress), I don’t yet know if any of that has anything to do with this fairly unprecedented outage or not.
Working to figure that out. I am fine, however, and if need be, as I finish my week guest hosting Mike’s show tonight, we can run the chat room etc. here at the server (thanks to Mike’s server admin folks 921!)
So, more details as I’m able to figure it all out. Check back at this space for more details if The BRAD BLOG is still down for the short term. And my thanks to all of those who have sent email, tweets and other messages of support!
BradUPDATE 1:28pm PT: Journalist David Dayen of Firedoglake has just covered this story with an article based on an interview he did with me this afternoon, pointing out why shedding sunlight on the way these creeps operate is so important (and how the corporate media has, so far, failed to do a damned thing about it.)