E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSShe’s in the headlines again because of a voicemail almost two decades in the making, but the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has hardly been a shrinking violet for the past 19 years.
Virginia ‘Ginni’ Thomas – who made news last night for asking her husband’s onetime accuser, Anita Hill, to apologize for leveling charges of sexual harassment against then-nominee Clarence Thomas -- has taken an increasingly high-profile role as a political activist in recent years, including associations with elements of the Tea Party movement that has arisen this election cycle.
She started a conservative Web site last year and has recently appeared at events alongside conservative fixtures like Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed, right-wing Web maven Andrew Breitbart, and former Bush adviser Karl Rove. (Tonight, Thomas is scheduled to participate in an online forum sponsored by the Family Research Council. The title: “The Taxman Cometh: Stopping the Obama Tax Hikes.”) (UPDATE: A spokesperson for Ginni Thomas now says that Thomas and FRC have both agreed that to keep the focus of the event on Obama and taxes, Thomas will not participate.)
In 2009, Thomas founded nonprofit group Liberty Central, a lobbying organization and Web site for conservatives that offers education materials, solicits donations, and “scores” congressional candidates by calculating those who have “the most respect for our five principles: limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, free enterprise, and national security,” per the site.
Under federal tax code, the group is classified as a 501(c)(4) organization that can accept unlimited donations and is not legally required to disclose its donors.
Her bio on the organization’s Web site notes that she is “a fan of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham and other talk radio hosts” and “is intrigued by Glenn Beck and listening carefully.” It does not mention that she is married to a Supreme Court justice.
A former Heritage Foundation legal analyst, Thomas faced questions about potential conflicts of interest in 2000, when Clarence Thomas was one of the five justices who ruled that George W. Bush had won the presidency of the United States. Ginni Thomas was working at the conservative think tank at the time, compiling resumes for potential appointees in a new Republican administration.
Thomas also formerly worked as a legal adviser at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has been a foil for Democrats during this election cycle who point out that powerful business coalition has spent millions to support primarily GOP candidates this year.
Supporters of Thomas and her organization note that other high profile members of the nation’s judiciary branch have politically active spouses. A frequent example: Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor, Ed Rendell, is married to a 3rd circuit appeals court judge in Philadelphia. Per the Washington Post, Judge Marjorie Rendell recuses herself from cases in which one party has contributed to her husband’s political campaigns.
When Liberty Central was founded, Ginni Thomas also emphasized that the court’s “ethics office” had reviewed Thomas’s involvement in the group. (Tony Mauro, a longtime Supreme Court reporter for the National Law Journal, noted that the court does not have an “ethics office” per se, but that the matter had been referred to a little-known “legal office” that “advises on personnel and ethics matters.”)
Thomas has stood by her constitutional right to express her political views, wife of a justice or not.
“I did not give up my First Amendment rights when my husband became a justice of the Supreme Court,” she said earlier this year.
Leave a Comment:
That's the problem with the righties... they can never let 'sleeping dogs lie'!
They always have to poke the hornets nest with a stick!
What's even MORE offensive is that Clarence Thomas's wife is a tea bagger!
No conflict of interest there... *insert snark* like allowing corporations to be counted as citizens!
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
What's even MORE offensive is that Clarence Thomas's wife is a tea bagger!
I bet it makes for interesting conversation at the dinner table, she will ask him about what new cases he will be hearing and she will tell him how to rule.
i have never heard a justices wife, girlfriend or mistriss have this much of a conflict. then again i think they had a deal when this anita Hill stuff surfaced, she will act like he is telling the truth, and he will act like she is not telling him how to rule. No wonder he did not any arguements to the decision to give the WhiteHouse to george Bush, considering His father put the old nasty goat on the high court.
also Clarence, please use Just For men, your gray makes you look like the wino on the street corner.
It's beginning to look like all the tee'd baggers want to do is stir the soup, no matter the issue. WGAS what this old worn out 'activist' thinks Anita Hill needs to do??
How dumb can dumb be? The wife of a Supreme Court justice, a tea partier, demonstrating very poor judgement less than two weeks before an election. Wonder how many independent voters will rethink what the tea party is all about.
I was a down-the-line, straight-ticket Democrat before the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings took place. I had voted for Mike Dukakis, and every Democratic presidential candidate before him going back to my first opportunity to participate in the political process.
Afterwards, I was ashamed of the treatment Clarence Thomas received from Democrats on the Senate Judicial Committee. I generally disagreed with Justice Thomas' very conservative viewpoint on judicial matters (as I did in the case of nominee Robert Bork), but his qualifications should have been decided on the merits...instead, MY party, even though they knew they didn't have the votes to deny confirmation, chose instead to turn his hearings into a vicious sideshow.
I sympathized when Thomas, quivering with rage, accurately described his confirmation process as a modern-day lynching.
It was the beginning of the end for me as a Democrat. No Supreme Court nominee, before or since...has endured the humiliation suffered by Clarence Thomas. His hearings were a disgrace.
Thomas remains far more conservative than I am to this day. But, I smile whenever I think about the fact that Thomas has repaid the left...with interest, for the indignities he suffered during his confirmation process in 1991.
What did Clarence Thomas do? He mentioned pubic hair on a coke can, and mentioned the size of a porn star's member, compared to his. What did Clinton do- RAPED a woman, sexually assaulted a woman, and actually SHOWED a woman his member...The left viciously attacked Paula Jones, and the Right mentioned Anita followed Clarence Thomas around for 10 years- and gets- viciously riduculed for... The lefts hypocracy is laughable, and its closeness to reality is distant.
Niro - you can't rewrite history NO matter how hard you try...
Clinton lied and withstood an impeachment trial & for you to insinuate there was criminal activity is nothing but more crazy talk!
Don't you think that with the 30 or so MILLION that was spent investigating him - they would have pressed criminal charges if they were in FACT warranted?
To put it into proper perspective...Clinton got a 'BJ' while Bush f***ed the ENTIRE country okay!
Fiesty- I am not re-writing anything.
Raped- Juanita Broderick
Sexually Assualted- Cathlene Willey
Took his thing out in front of- Paula Jones
Blow job from a 20 year old intern- while talking war to congressman- Lewinsky
Okay... I'll ask again & go real slow this time Niro...
If that were factual... after the millions spent by Ken Starr & his witch hunt... where are the freakin charges against Clinton?
Hint: There were NONE!
I don't know why after 19 years this woman would ask for an apology. Except that all this time she be;ieves that there was some kind of affair, and it's stuck in her craw. Why else would she ask for an apology for something she stated Anita Hill did with her husband, instead of what she did to her husband. I'm just saying.
The problem with lefties is that they don't know the facts, can't handle the truth, think the constitution is debatable and want activist judges to trash it.
Phillip - Anita did not "make it public". She did the right thing to submit it to campus security. She wasn't even sure it was a prank or not, but it made her feel threatened nevertheless. She did the right thing.
It was campus security who decided to take the matter to the FBI. Again - they did the right thing.
Ginny made an implied threat - the tone and content of her message is quite clear. She meant to be intimidating.
"Can't change the spots..." I watched those hearings. I didn't believe Justice Thomas then and I don't believe him now.
Justice Thomas (the turd...with all due respect) now attends political financial cartel meetings with the Koch industries in Palm Springs just before he participates in rulings that allow our elections to be bought with annonymous contributions...
You can catch a thief...but a liar??? Water seeks its own level...as evidenced by this spouse and her absurdities.
She's (Mrs. Justice Thomas) just another disgrace added to the face of this nation. No class accompanied by no ethics, the Thomas' couple live happily ever after.
Anita Hill was a victim at a time when this country was more forgiving and accepting of the male behavior that Thomas was guilty of. She's lead an honorable, respectable life, while Justice Thomas shames and brings doubt to the U.S. Supreme Court's impartiality.
Wallowing in the past, needing justification and vindication, so many years later, only shows how doubtful Mrs. Thomas remains about her esteemed spouse.
She got a phone call she didn't like. Then a week later she called the police.
As we know Ms. Hill is a LAWYER, so she must know something we don't - phone calls are police worthy. Especially if made by "mean girl" right wingers.
Bad phone caller.
Hey, Spanky? Ms. Hill thought it was a prank, since it was 19 years TO THE DAY of her testimony the call was made, so she asked the campus police to look into it. The campus police, being unable to trace the call, asked the FBI for assistance.
Ms Thomas must have been shocked when the FBI contacted her, and had no choice but to admit making the call.
The Tea Party affiliation is going to cause her hubby some real problems if she keeps this up. I assume if any 'Tea Party' issues come up before the court, a certain Justice will have to recuse himself?
She reported it to campus security, like she's supposed to. They then made the decision to escalate it, not her.
I agree, it was a horrible decision to make that call on Thomas' part.
Hey Lyn? Do you involve the police a week after getting a "prank" phone call?
And if you do, do you wait a week and then call the police?
So, is your refriderator running?
Spanky, plug in your refrigerator. Anita Hill didn't involve the police, campus security did when they were unable to trace the call. Considering she testified against a sitting Justice, this call would have been considered threatening, why wouldn't the campus police and FBI investigate?
Spanky-
Besides we already know what that "uncle Tom" will do anyway. Bye the way how old must Bev. be to be rocking phrases like uncle Tom? Come on Bev. there are so many newer and more descriptive ways to denigrate someone. You familiar with Little Wayne, Chris Rock, or Jay -Z?
FYI: every ethnic group has uncles. Justice Thomas just so happens to have a name that can be shortened to Tom or Uncle Tom.
You wouldn’t be calling Little Wayne, Chris Rock, or Jay –Z racist would you?
Speaking of children, you’re no smarter than a kindergartner if you think speaking in symbolic terms of an uncle is racist.
Now if I said SPANKY, you must be rocking that KKK hat; that would be racist.
Tea BAGGER speak is mostly racist as the NAACP has pointed out that Dick Armey et al are linked to White Supremacist groups.
Beverly, the leftist posts you ply at will would seem to make you a flounder. You know, both eyes on left side. To date, everything you have posted shows you are one of the Chigago mafia. Screw everyone who doesn't live for commie bastards.
Glad you are not a tea bagger and just a tea bag.
"She started a conservative Web site last year"
____________________________________________________________________
Uh Oh. This makes her an "enemy of the State" according to Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the progressive democrats
Why all the vitrol?
umm, no. it's not just a web site, as the article clearly says: it's a lobbying firm.
Madison From NY
Uh Oh. This makes her an "enemy of the State" according to Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the progressive democrats
That's right; Madison
Considering she is a tea Bagger and her husband is a Supreme Court Justice it looks like Ginny Thomas is looking for attention to give her Tea Party fame. She will get it on Saturday night live.
Why all the vitrol?
How would you like it if some one called you wife that early in the Am with that Bullsh!T? Since Uncle Tom has contributed nothing but space on the Supreme He is the one who should be apoligizing for not speaking up for america.
Hell never spoke a word in a year. And Uncle tom didn't even ask a question from the bench in over three years!!!
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_04/017725.php
He and his wife are 2 more caricatures in the Tea Party Circus.
well that's not racist at all
Madison From NY
"She started a conservative Web site last year"
____________________________________________________________________
Uh Oh. This makes her an "enemy of the State" according to Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the progressive democrats
Madison- are you mentally challenged in some way? If you are, I'll make it a point to not pick on you or belittle you in any way.
Her husband is a Supreme Court Justice. Apparently, it does not concern you that the wife/husband being a political activist (of any political party) creates a conflict of interest for a Supreme Court Justice.
I guess we have a winner - Beverly is the biggest racist here.
And Jody, is it your position that the wife's positioins create a conflict for the husband. Should we change the law to reflect that they are not individuals, to be treated seperately? Have you actually given this any thought at all, or is it just your hatred for conservaticves?
Besides we already know what that "uncle Tom" will do anyway. Bye the way how old must Bev. be to be rocking phrases like uncle Tom? Come on Bev. there are so many newer and more descriptive ways to denigrate someone. You familiar with Little Wayne, Chris Rock, or Jay -Z?
Hold on there, Spanky. I do not hate conservatives, where in my comments have I ever said that. I have conservative friends and we talk politics in civil debate. There are a number of republican legislators/previous legislators I respect and like--Lugar, Graham, Hagel, Leach, G.H.W. Bush to name a few. I may not always agree with republican views but that does not mean I hate conservatives.
You distort my words. A sitting Supreme Court justice's spouse, regardless of their ideological leanings, is free to vote for and support any candidate they choose; for the sake of appearances all other justices spouses do so quietly. There is no need for a law but Ginni Thomas needs to do a better job of avoiding the appearance of possible conflict of interest.
Tea baggers? That is so cute. Love the name calling the open minded ulra cool left does. btw 70 percent of dems believe in what the tea party stands for. The other 30 percent is sucking at the teet of the American way of life.
niro- I don't know where you got your numbers, but they are completely wrong. Not even a majority of republicans identify with the tea party. As to the name- what else would you call someone who wears teabags stapled to their hat? I have seen them with tea bags all the way around the brim & hanging down over their face. They better hope it doesn't rain!
Niro: You forget that it was the TEABAGGERS, themselves, who called themselves that in the first place. It was only AFTER they were made aware of the double entendre that they suddenly stopped and started blaming the nickname on the left. The difference is, the left understood it at once. They didn't need it to be explained to them....
The problem with the extreme righties who say they want "limited government" is that what they REALLY want is for the gov't to not tell them to do anything they don't want to do (like pay their fair share of taxes) but they DO want the gov't to tell the rest of us what to do or not do (DADT, gay marriage, abortion, etc.).
That's the truth. They only like certain parts of the Constitution. They don't like government until they need government and they are the first to yell--where's FEMA, why isn't the President doing more?
I just trying to figure out what my "fair share" is. Do yuou know Indie? How about your Jody?
Actually, we kinda like the Constitution.
We especially like the parts that establish what the "government cannot do".
Ever notice how much the words Congress shall make no law are used. Like Congress shall make no law prohibiting free speech; or abridging the freedom of speech. Congress shall make no law infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Congress shall make no law infringing on the right to peacefully assemble. On and on. It seems the Constitution spends a lot of effort telling the government what it cannot do.
With respect to DADT, abortion, etc., it says all legislative powers are vested in Congress. If abortion is not allowed for in the Constitution, pass a law through Congress, but don't make "right to privacy" crap up and have activist politicians/judges pass social agendas they can't pass against the will of the people.
Believing in the Constitution (freedom from the government of the moment telling you what you can do/say and cannot do/say about everything) and passing laws through Congress is "extreme" to big government socialist.
Wow.
Directly out of the Liberal Handbook of BS: "If you have a job, you must have gotten it by cheating, lying, because of racist hiring managers, or being related to the evil owner. Therefore your 'Fair share' is all of what you make - because it's the governments money, not yours."
Pretty clear cut explanation.
See, JoAnna, when you make a completely irrational statement like that you lose any credibility you might have had about anything.
Spanky. Fair share means just that. Millionaire hedge fund investors paying 15% taxes while those earning under $200,000 pay 28% means millionaires are not paying a fair share. Those people should be paying the same amount as the rest of us.
Well, JS1 went off the deep end--that is as irrational a statement as I've read in a long time. I don't know anyone whose fair share is ALL.
Maybe both of you should be complaining about this little fact--the highest income earners income tax rate was 16.6%; in 1995 they paid 30%. Compare that to what you pay and if you pay more, start complaining. Now, it would seem that has a direct impact on budget deficit. Blame Bush 43 and the GOP for adding to the middle class tax burden by creating a tax system that benefited the richest 2%. It really should not be so difficult to understand that the middle class, and most likely that includes Spanky and JS1, are subsidizing the richest people with OUR tax dollars.
Gee, bob, you forgot the one about Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Why is that, Bob?
Jody, I firmly believe that your comments are either 'over the intellectual level' or fall into the 'no desire to know' catagory of bob and JS1.
Think about this: 'ignore' is the root of 'ignorance' and from every post I've seen JS1 and bob write, they both ignore facts.
Okay, I made up the 'ignore' is the root of 'ignorance' part but the rest is true.
Bob, perhaps you should read the constitution. "Congress shall make no law..." only appears in the First Amendment.
Hi Gunsmoke,
See what I was talking about before. That's exactly the type of question Festus would blog if Miss Kitty had had a connection in the Long Branch for him to use.
And by the way, Jody's comments were insipid and boring. In an effort to not appear pedant, I differed. Hopefully this explanation is not too abstruse for you.
Ward Oranman,
Nice technical catch.
The Washington Post story about this phone call includes a quote from Lillian McEwen, who dated Clarence Thomas before he married, that indicates she is writing a memoir.
Mrs. Thomas is sending a warning shot across Ms. McEwen's bow to indicate that if she tells what she knows she can expect the same treatment as Anita Hill.
Case closed.
Suggestion to MSNBC: try to score an interview with Ms. McEwen.
I had not heard that. MSNBC definitely should get an interview with Ms McEwen.
Wow! I would love to watch that interview! Hope Ms. McEwen doesn't back down...
The only problem here is that someone is still butt-hurt 20 years after the fact.
Way to be adults, people. Way to be adults.
Wow.... huge mistake by his wife ...I was shocked they even allowed him to continue ...but once again its the GOP looking the other way for their friends ..
He must have had some value to them ...
The appearance of impropriety - it just seems wrong for Ms. Thomas to be behaving this way when her husband is a Supreme Court Justice. It just does not pass the smell test.
I am so tired of these folks and their double standard. We do not want government telling us how to live our lives, YET, we want to tell other folks how to live theirs - and that life must adhere to our right-wing principles. No hypocrisy there. And yet folks are bound and determined to put those very same people in Congress because they are disappointed President Obama has not changed everything in 18 months. How quickly we forget. Be careful what you wish for!!!
Ginni Thomas has completely neutered Uncle Tom!
20 years after the fact...good grief! Must be real fun living in that house....
Chilled- I bet it will be the same as living in the Palin house 20 years from now: she will still be smarting from (and making smart-ass comments about) "I can see Russia from my house" and "notes on my hand...".
You Betcha', DBO....or she will still be screeching about the LSM.
Everyone......Go VOTE, I just did! TURN TEXAS BLUE!
It shows that she is still holding it over her husbands head and doesn't want him to forget what he did. Clarence Thomas should be removed because his wife tells him how to vote, that's why we have outside interests trying to by our democracy because that is what the teabaggers want.
Chilled, did it yesterday. One can only hope.
Anita Hill took the lie detector test and passed it ..then the senate closed down the hearings !.....
A "shrinking violet"? I'd never consider Mrs. Thomas a shrinking violet - she is just expressing her opinions in a very testy election year - you know, bringing up the past for Tea Party/Republican gain - she's anything but a shrinking violet. I'd say she's more of a trouble maker and loves every moment of doing so. I do think a woman in her position should keep out of politics.
I assumed this was a case of "drunk dialing" until I heard it was left at 7:30 am. I HOPE she wasn't up all night hitting the bottle.
There is no excuse (outside of being drunk) for Mrs. Thomas to harass a woman called as a witness in her husband's senate confirmation hearing. No excuse. If this continues I sincerely hope the DOJ looks into presses charges.
LOL! Good post Amy!
Of all the things to come back into the news, this was one of the last things I would think of.
I know, Pat.
I mean it's like the Tea Bag crazies are COMPETING for craziest BS of the day award or something. Bill Maher's Bat Sh!t Crazy Bracket last Friday night was Top Notch funny!
Green doesn't look good on any of these women; but they simply cannot help themselves.
And it's HARD competing for the craziest BS of the day when there is so much Lib/Dem crazy BS to compete with.
I fear we will never ever hold the top spot. Sigh.
It seems the same argument the tea-baggers make against the NYC Islamic center applies here: Is it against the law? Of course not. Is it the right thing to do? Of course not. It is, however, what one would expect from someone who could stand being around such an unimpressive tool as Clarence Thomas all day.
There is something about this that smells. Why would Ginni Thomas call Anita Hill for an apology now? What was the point of this? What troubles me is a wife of a sitting Supreme Court Justice is full blown Tea Party/GOP activist; it would trouble me if she was full blown democratic party activist. Yes, spouses have a right to vote and support the candidates of their choice--quietly. It appears to me that Thomas's wife activism places him in a conflict of interest situation, and by bringing up Anita Hill just before an election, it shines a brighter light on Clarence Thomas.
And Jody, bright light on him will not show much, he is only a token. I'm with you it doesn't smell right, and you can bet if a Dem was doing this, it would be on the cable news 24/7. A Supreme Court Justice spouse, has an obligation to keep opinions to themselves, otherwise they jeopardize there impartiality or the appearance thereof. He was a poor choice to begin with and Arlen Spector and the rest of the Judiciary panel should be ashamed of themselves for the way the treated Anita Hill. I watched every hour of those hearings and it was awful.
Stay classy, Ginni, stay classy.
Steve-299895:
Too late for that!
Are you nuts, Ginni should be standing on her neighborhood corner, for that's how much class she has.
Steve, how could she, she never was to begin with and now she is just batty and still classless.
An apology to Uncle Thomas??? That is nuts, just like his teabagging bimbo of a wife.
Clarence probably pushed his crazy wife over the edge making her watch porn everynight, and demeaning her in their homemade amatuer movies.
Wonder what the titles would be? Here comes the judge? Teabag the Movie? Guess who is coming at dinner? I guess Clarence is an activist judege afterall!!!
To those Progressives on this site using names like "Tea baggers" and "Uncle Tom": Your anger, hatred, intolerance, and fear is duly noted.  You embarrass yourselves the same as those that use the "N" word do since it becomes a de facto statement of who you are versus a reflection of your opponents. Those of us that actively support Tea Party principles (estimated to be 35% of voters by even Democrat pollsters) shouldn't engage in prejudicial name-calling.  Instead we will write checks to our candidates and vote in November to begin the return of our country to the Constitutional principles it was based upon.   Â
The tea baggers used the term themselves before someone pointed out to them the Urban Dictionary definition of the term.
Here's a nice picture of a lady "teabaggng 4 Jesus".
http://realworldpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/01/who-first-used-term-teabagger.html
They also "teabagged" Democratic members of Congress by mailing tea bags to them.
Those are the facts. Deal with it.
Whether we call you Tea-Baggers or Tea Party is arguing symantics, AT the end of the day like so many other self proclaimed patriots in the past, what ever the brand the Tea Party are facist.
This Bimbo wife of Thomas believes in the likes of RUSH and BECK, who are NO different than Tokyo Rose, and she was considered a war criminal.
You can write your checks and vote in November, BUT you have NO clue of the Constitution OR you would reject this movement.
AND there is NO way that 35% of the voters are TEABAGGERS. Hell, I bet the majority of the GOP does not even believe in your TEABAGGING silliness.
Those constitutional principals? What? Using the Constitution as a prop for everything. Returning the country? Where has the country been, and how did it get wherever that was?
Simple questions, with not so simple answers, I guess! But wait, smell a Bush/Cheney Administration.
Really? I don't know which fascists you are referring to. Most ignorant pirates/liberals and others that can't even spell fascist refer to the Nazis, so I'll use those guys for comparision, if they are offensive enough for you.
The Nazis were socialist. Their core support were unions. They believed in gun control and abortion. They were anti-church, anti-family, anti-individual. They believed inheritance was the property of the state and taxed it as such. They believed in national health care and believed health/nutrition were not private matters. They were anti-smoking, promoted organic food control, alternative holistic medicine and had public health drives that foreshadowed today's health drives (although I don't think Eva Braun was as involved as Michelle).
They were anti-capitalist and believed in the notion of ending class distinction through big government. Above all they believed in the State, that big government was the answer to everything, kinda like Obama says.
So, peg-brain, are the real fascists the tea baggers, or some other equally "progressive" party?
Bob, I appreciate that the new thing among the right is to paint the left as fascists as well as socialists in addition to revising the definition of Nazi philosophy as socialist rather than fascist.
To be perfectly fair and honest, Nazi philosophy initially incorporated many elements of traditional right- and left-wing political ideas. What qualifies Nazism as fascism wasn't it's early reliance on labor unions and the down-trodden working class for support; what qualifies it as fascism is that, in political practice, it asserted an authoritarian nationalist agenda.
In other words, the Nazis were fascists because they sanctioned jingoism through the state with the military support. If you knew your history, Bob, you'd know that the Nazi party only relied on the fear and upset of the common worker in order to propel themselves into power - once their political dominance was assured, all allegiances to traditional socialist ideals were abandoned.
Declaring the Nazis socialists indicates one of two things about you - you're either woefully uneducated on the evolution of various political viewpoints or you're being willfully ignorant of reality in order to support an a priori political bias of your own.
Try to remember that the enmity between fascists and socialists is well-documented; this deep-seated clash between the most extreme forms of conservative and liberal ideologies is best demonstrated by the bitter fighting between Nazi Germany and the USSR on the Eastern front during WWII, manifested further by the particularly cruel treatment both sides gave to each other's captured POW's.
The Nazis engaged in epic pitched battles with members of the German Communist Party in the streets of major German cities throughout the 1920's...and, into the early '30's.
Clearly...the Nazi's weren't leftists.
Tim-83: I agree that calling Justice Thomas an Uncle Tom is racist, not to mention in poor taste, but since when is calling someone a "teabagger" considered racist or predjudicial? If your argument holds water, than using a donkey or elephant as a symbol for a political party could be construed as predjudiced, albeit self-inflicted by the parties themselves. As far as mascots go, I'd much rather be called a tea bag than a donkey, even though I like what the donkey thinks more than the tea bag. Don't be so sensitive. The "teabagger" term is not used to be hateful towards anyone's race, religion, physical or emotional handicap, economic status ,sex or sexual orientation. If you look back at basic constitutional principals, freedom of speech includes the right to parody our political system--even create nicknames for its participants. If you Tea Party folks don't like your name, you can change it to something more representative of your true identities and affiliation. It's still early. How about the Conservative Judgmental Evangelical Party. You could be the CJEP! That's a hard name/acronym to make fun of. Think about it.
Exodite,
Nice post, but the point of the my comments was simply to take exception with Pirate calling the tea party fascists by pointing out the social agenda of the Nazis and asking the in-effect question - if you want to call a party fascists, what party's social agenda is closer?
It's interesting that you did not address, or dispute the social agendas. Great, and interesting obfuscation though.
I'm sorry I'm short on time. I will try to reply later tonight.
Thanks for your comments Exodite and look forward to maybe catching a reply tomorrow.
Mixed Bag,
The communists were also some of the first to try out Hitler's special shower facilities.
Exodite,
Revising the definition of Nazi philosophy as socialist rather than fascist? Mussolini was a socialist in good standing before he came up with the bundle of sticks idea and defined both socialism and fascism as "movement, struggle and action". (Movement / Change? - sorry) This is said to have represented the marriage of Leninism and Nietzche. The Nazis were likewise inspired by Nietzche, but also the Romantics who believed the spirit of the act was more important than the idea behind it. I think this best sums Hitler, he was no philosopher. What was most important to Hitler was an idea to arouse the masses. He got that from Italian Fascism, but also the French and Russian revolutions. Hitler's foundational ideas, or ideological system? In more than 700 pages of Mein Kampf, he mentions the words fascism, or fascist in two paragraphs.
With regards to socialism and unions, most of the time, asking what part of National Socialist German Workers Party do you not understand suffices. You however, are not the typical FR blogger. Many have waged the socialist / fascist debate ever since, maybe it is a distinction without a difference, but and we certainly cannot, nor do I care to argue it here. Being as educated in the evolution of various political viewpoints as you are, I'm sure you understand. Irregardless, if they want to name themselves socialist and promote a socialistic agenda, or if they simply "abandoned" their allegiances to traditional socialist (are non traditional socialist still socialist) ideals, you're exception is noted for what it is worth.
By the way, did Stalin abandon his allegiances to traditional socialist ideals, or was the Purge, the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact, the German- Soviet Commercial Agreement, the Soviet occupation of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, eastern Poland as a result of the pact with Germany consistent with traditional socialist ideals? Was Stalin actually a fascist (your examples) when he used his military to invade Finland, when he asserted an authoritarian nationalist agenda like Hitler, then not a fascist, but a traditional socialist once the opening barrage of Barbarosa started? Is this when the deep seated clash between the extreme forms of conservative and liberal ideologies started? I'm trying to remember the enmity between fascists and socialists, but I don't recall Hitler sacrificing Paulus and the Sixth Army at Stalingrad, or the largest tank battle in history at Kurst, etc., the savagery of the Eastern Front, being about divergent political views.
I guess all the history books I've read are woefully uneducated about history.
Thanks for your comments, and again nice obfuscation of my original point.
Some of us who watched the hearings believed Anita Hill and we believe Anita Hill today. Ginni Thomas must also think she was telling the truth and it must gall her to have to live with that every day of her life.
Wow! A black woman conservative. Another serious runaway from the Dems plantation. After all you Dems take good care of your blackies as long as they keep their mouth shut and vote Dem. But this is shameful, and especially when y'all have even made a half-black the Massa in the big house.
The nerve of some of them uppity blacks to think for themselves.
Thomas' wife is white.
One of those [racist slur deleted]s happens to be President of the United States.
wow you must truly be color blind........she is white @$$#o!e
Hope it is color blind, because you just can't fix stupid.
Typical Teabagger yelling, but not knowing what he is yelling about.
Ray is also a Strict Constitutionist, he just does'nt know what's in the Constitution.
Keepup Rayray.
Ray-of-light in D.C.
Wow! A black woman conservative. Another serious runaway from the Dems plantation. After all you Dems take good care of your blackies as long as they keep their mouth shut and vote Dem. But this is shameful, and especially when y'all have even made a half-black the Massa in the big house.
The nerve of some of them uppity blacks to think for themselves
the truth is that i think he was married to a black woman but dumped her for his current wife, but at the same time he was sexually harassing at least 2 black women.
what bothers most black, is that when he went to college he took advantage of afirmitive action programs that helped him finish college and go to law school, great, my uncles were able to do the same thing, but now he has made it to the high court, he is against all affirmative action programs and thinks they should be abolished.
to me he is ashamed of his ethnicy and want to be white, (nothing wrong with that many blacks have identity problems) but he has taken it to new heights.
No wonder then president elect Obama when asked what justice would he like to see taken off the high court it was Clarence Thomas!!!!
Now
Shame on you! Where are your manners? While you may think yourself clever and glib, your thoughtless comments are merely inflammatory and small-minded. Surely your mother taught you better. You need to apologize and clean up your act.
Ray of light, wow there's a misnomer.......anyway you are an idiot and an ignorant one at that!!!
Clarence Thomas should resign. He's got no business being on the Supreme Court while his wife is running a political outfit.
BO should resign. He has no business being President while his wife is out campaigning for only Democrats
The presidency is a political office and Obama's wife has a right to campaign for his party just like Laura Bush did for her husband's party. The position of Justice of the Supreme Court is not a poltical position. At least it's not supposed to be. Roberts and his merry band of corporatists have politicized it more than it's ever been since the Tawny Court came out with the Dredd Scott decision.
Ray, please go read a paper, watch the news...not fox, the NEWS, and open yourself up to some positive thoughts..., you would be surprised about what you might learn or like?
tim-83
Those of us that actively support Tea Party principles (estimated to be 35% of voters by even Democrat pollsters) shouldn't engage in prejudicial name-calling. Instead we will write checks to our candidates and vote in November to begin the return of our country to the Constitutional principles it was based upon.
This country does not belong to Tea Baggers.
Beverly- I bet the country WOULD belong to teabaggers, if they had billions of dollars to buy it with, like the folks that contribute to Rove's outfit. I bet most of 'em are middle to lower income folks that just don't (or won't) see what's going on with this country, because they are too worried about Obama being the president right now.
drive-by-observer
Beverly- I bet the country WOULD belong to teabaggers, if they had billions of dollars to buy it with, like the folks that contribute to Rove's outfit. I bet most of 'em are middle to lower income folks that just don't (or won't) see what's going on with this country, because they are too worried about Obama being the president right now.
Well said DBO
Like the one who is gonna donate to the CoC just so her wages can be lowered or her job outsourced. LOL
Two individual donations of $500,000 and $50,000 were made to Liberty Central in 2009. These were the only two donors. Only multimillionaires or influence buying parties (like corporations) can make this type of donation. How many grass root people can donate this much amount? After the donations, Citizens United v FEC was decided in Jan 21st 2010. The justice did not recuse himself from the case and voted in favor of Citizens United. Is there a link we will know after many years or is it better to decide it now?
Prima facie, it looks as a case of bribery.
To Madison in NY: Stay positive in the face of the anger from the Left and look for it to dramatically increase after November. Progressives did a phenomenal job with 501c4 monies in the last election cycle but appear frustrated with the balancing of the playing field in this cycle.
Funny, the way the media reports it, conservatives are the angry ones, look at all those angry and ugly signs at the protests, listen to them yell about their taxes when their taxes were cut in 2009. Take a look at the FR posts since Jan 2009, it is the right who really were nasty having lost the WH--they were far from positive.
tim-83, Citizens United was decided after the last election cycle. Disclosure and limits were still in place.
Jody:
Key words from your post: "the way the media reports it"
This reeks of the Moncia Lewinsky dress she didn't launder for 6 months ...I find it odd a woman would keep a soiled dress that long !