Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, December 08, 2008
Star Parker :: Townhall.com Columnist
CNN's Brown on Rendell recalls Napolitano, Anita Hill, and Clarence Thomas
by Star Parker
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Wonder why, in a survey reported by the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, only 28 percent said they "believed all or most" of what they see on CNN?

CNN's Campbell Brown took three minutes of prime evening news time the other night to berate Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell for remarks, unwittingly made next to a live microphone, that in Brown's view were sexist.

Speaking, in what he thought was a private conversation, Rendell called the selection of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano to head the Department of Homeland Security perfect "Because for that job, you have to have no life.

Janet has no family. Perfect. She can devote 19, 20 hours a day to it."

Oh my lord. Brown ticked down her list of outrages. Would Rendell have said this if she were a man? How many women don't get hired because they have families? Do single woman get disproportionately stuck with the more "burdensome shifts"? etc., etc.

Unless you're looking for something, it's pretty hard to see anything derogatory or malicious in Rendell's remarks and, as his press secretary noted, he could have just as easily been talking about a man.

If Brown was actually interested in facts, she could have reported that Napolitano described herself, in a story in the Arizona Republic a couple years ago, as "just a straight, single, workaholic."

Ms Brown's journalism, of course, is really an agenda looking for a news hook. She concluded her three minute lecture, putting fellow liberal Rendell on notice that "Your comments perpetuate stereotypes."

Now if we think back to the fall of 1991, we, and Campbell Brown, might recall some real character assassination and exploitation of stereotypes, in which Janet Napolitano played a lead role. That was when she was Anita Hill's attorney in the campaign to slander Clarence Thomas with sexual harassment allegations and derail his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I recall that fall 17 years ago well, as I worked, as a young conservative activist, to bring black pastors from around the country to Washington in a show of support for the besieged nominee Thomas.

The campaign was defined by sleaze, and Janet Napolitano was certainly one of the quarterbacks.

Central to this campaign was a strategy to build off and exploit the worst stereotypes of black men as sexual predators.

The irregularities that made the circus possible are a national embarrassment. It is doubtful that it would even have seen the light of day had Anita Hill's supposedly confidential statement not been illegally leaked from someone on the Senate Judiciary committee to the press.

Several years later, Napolitano was confirmed as a US Attorney because the Senate confirmation committee was more deferential to her private conversations than Campbell Brown was to Ed Rendell's.

In those confirmation proceedings, Napolitano was questioned, and then left off the hook, regarding her off the record conversation, during the Anita Hill hearings, which caused witness and supposed Hill corroborator Susan Hoerchner to alter her testimony.

Hoerchner initially testified that she heard from Hill that she was being harassed by Thomas at a time before Hill was even working for him. Napolitano took Hoerchner aside, who then returned and said she couldn't remember when she heard Anita Hill's claim.

Fortunately, Clarence Thomas survived the brutal attack on his character and the country has had the benefit of a stalwart defender of our constitution on the Supreme Court. And, with the help of his important vote, it is no longer legal in our country to murder children through partial birth abortion.

However, thanks to Anita Hill and Janet Napolitano, a man's reputation is forever besmirched and grotesque stereotypes of black men perpetuated.

Despite CNN's stalwart efforts to spin the news to the left, Ed Rendell's benign remarks caused no similar damage to Janet Napolitano and she is spared the pain she has caused to others.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Star Parker is the founder and president of CURE, the Coalition for Urban Renewal & Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Well Done Star!

Great Column!

Great job!
My congratulations to Campbell Brown on a job well done.

In an era of timid, lazy reporters who refuse to dig into a story and ask tough questions, she's a breath of fresh air!

((Clarence Thomas is an unqualified idiot. When was the last time he even asked a question or dared to vote against Scalia?))

Pet Goat
Great post.

I am so happy that you got a breath of fresh air because anal cranial submersion can be terminal. Just shows how the east coast lives in a cloud of ignorance.

Both you and Campbell Brown couldn't carry Justice Thomas' urine sample to the lab.

GD99
I think you meant that Pet Goat and Campbell Brown wouldn't be worthy to carry an alleged curly hair on a Coke can, didn't you?

Actually, a dear, close friend of mine

was working for Clarence Thomas at the EEOC during Hill's tenure at the EEOC.

First of all, Hill was FURIOUS that Thomas had married a white women!!!

It was actually Hill who THREW HERSELF at Thomas... When she wasn't making a COMPELTE FOOL of herself, she was the laughing stock of the entire office.

Thomas would NEVER allow the door to his office to be closed when Hill went into his office.


Apparently pretty much everyone working at the EEOC at that time knew Hill was a crazy slutt, but never suspected she'd do what she did.


Now that I think of it, Hill seems like Goat's kind of gal! Go for it, Goat! :-)

Well, we've KNOWN for a long time that

"Goat" was not all that bright, and apparently had some kind of "anger problem" and heaven knows what OTHER issues we don't know about. or care to know.....

But when Goat actually puts in writing that "Clarence Thomas is an unqualified idiot..." it's clear that Goat is NOT just "not all that bright" he qualifies as outright STUPID, and should probably be committed to a home for the bewildered where they can keep him adequately medicated!


Another Homer
Star, great column! Your fact-laden, common sense approach is very much appreciated. Thank you once again.

odd column
It is not clear how CNN is carrying liberal water by having Brown attack a popular liberal governor. One would think the accusations of liberal bias would be stronger if CNN avoided liberals sticking their foot in their mouth.

What is interesting about the Parker column is how the worthiness of reporting is not focused on what is true, as much as it is by politics. Shouldn't the worth of the charges against Thomas depend on their truth rather than if Thomas' political and journalistic leanings are sufficiently conservative?

There are plenty of bachelor politicians, I am somewhat suspicious that Rendell would have said the same thing about them in this situation. He could have, but that is not the same as saying he would have.

It is hard to know the truth of the Hill/Thomas dispute. Her veracity has held up as well as his. But it is the kind of issue in which people on each side tend to believe based on their politics more than the evidence. Parker is clearly in this camp suggesting that somehow Thomas was right because he thinks there should be no health exception to partial birth abortion laws, a pretty obvious non-sequitor.

affirmative action
Hey Goat, how come you libs are not raising Cain about David Gregory being hired as the new Meet the Press moderator(?)? Where is the call for affirmative action? But it goes to show, the Left is all lies. Every idea they have is built on lies. Goat thinks he and Ms. Brown and even Ruth Ginsburg are in the same class as Justice Thomas is funny. Hey Goat,compare the number of first authors of decisions between Buzzy Ginsburg and Justice Thomas-and he has been there fewer years than Ginsburg. Ms. Brown has not seen a liberal idea that she does not support. So much for objectivity. But let's get back to affirmative action. You are a lefty and I know you support AA so how come you are not crying foul? In fact, how come the Left has never cried foul over the whiteness of the big three anchors? Publishers of the NYT, LAT, Tribune, Globe?? How about editors for the same papers??? How about the lack of color in the Wash. Press Corps??? Goat you and your lefty cowards are just a bunch of washed up, dried out, flash-back trippin pant loads.

I had forgotten
Great Column Ms Parker. I had forgotten Governor Napolitano was one of Anita Hill's attorneys. I remember watching the hearings not knowing anything about either of them. My normal way in those days would have been to very slightly lean toward the woman's version. But thankfully I was educated back in the days when we were taught HOW to think not WHAT to think and it soon became evident who was telling the truth.

Oddly enough I do not remember Ms. Brown's castigation of Jesse Jackson when he said he wanted to anatomically alter Mr Obama.

For a very partisan democrat Rendell is actually an alright guy and I don't think he has a sexist bone in his body.

The PC police have been given new marching orders with the election of Obama. Will they be going after "Huckleberry Finn" in the libraries again?

Clarence Thomas' questions on the court
In response to Goat's asking " When was the last time he even asked a question or dared to vote against Scalia?"

Well, Clarence Thomas actually addressed that very thing in interviews after his book came out. The justices know everything that will be said or argued when court is in session. They have read it - and had it researched and summarized over and over by their many clerks. If he feels the need to ask a question he will but he usually does not feel the need. It is just a difference in style and his is to learn by listening - something rare these days - and does not feel the need to hear himself speak.

And goat, when was the last time Ginsburg disagreed with her liberals buddies on the court? Scalia and Thomas are strict constructionists and so I would find it unusual for them to disagree often.

THE GARDEN STATE?

.....PET GOAT ...

.....Is there any truth to the claims of McGreevys driver that he was part of a threesome with McGreevy and his wife? ...what ever became of that rumor? ...

.....I heard that NJ is so polluted because it is the anal opening for NYC excrement ...is that true ...at any rate your name is apt because only goats are fit to live in that cesspool .....COLOSSUS

Pet Goat writes...
"In an era of timid, lazy reporters who refuse to dig into a story and ask tough questions, she's a breath of fresh air!"

Brown didn't ask any tough questions. She didn't ask any questions. All she did was take cheap shots at a white guy because he got caught with a mike on.

The funny part about it is that Rendell's comments, that were not intended for publication, are both accurate and innocuous (the truth usually is), whereas Brown's premeditated speech is inaccurate, abusive, and bigoted in addition to being offensive.

The contrived thought process that Brown uses to cry foul here betrays her as little more than a victim wannabe running around with perpetual chip on her soldier, looking for someone, anyone, to condemn for anything. She behaves as if blaming others will relieve her burden when in fact it is the very act of blaming others that IS her burden.

Also, poster "none" has it exactly right on the left's hypocrisy when it comes to the lily white complexion of MSM news show hosts. It's just one more example of their separate set of rules that only conservatives must follow.

Utterly amazing
Lon writes:

"It is hard to know the truth of the Hill/Thomas dispute. Her veracity has held up as well as his. But it is the kind of issue in which people on each side tend to believe based on their politics more than the evidence. Parker is clearly in this camp suggesting that somehow Thomas was right because he thinks there should be no health exception to partial birth abortion laws, a pretty obvious non-sequitor."

The segue into the Hill/Thomas dispute was explained in the article. What is a "non-sequitor" is Lon's presumption that Parker's support for Thomas in the dispute is based on his position on abortion and not on the very questionable altering of Hoechner's testimony as descibed in the article.

But what's utterly amazing is that after hearing for ten years now about how Bill Clinton shouldn't have been impeached because he 'only lied about sex' we still have these same libs whining that Thomas shouldn't be on the Court because they think he lied about sex.

As regards Lon's allusion to "evidence", Ken Starr produced the blue dress with the DNA evidence on it. What did Anita Hill do with the Coke can?

CNN & Campbell Brown
I would have to agree with the statistics on the CNN ratings. I used to be a big fan of CNN..."most trusted news"...not anymore. They have become so politicized that you no longer hear the "news" only CNN's selection of what them deem to be "news" and their editorial rendition of said "news." The only program we now watch on CNN is Lou Dobbs...may not always agree with him but he is honest and does present both sides of a story. Campbell Brown..no bias/no bull? Are they kidding....all I had to do is watch and listen to her comments regarding Sarah Palin .. she along with several other female "reporters" aka Katie Couric, were absolutely hateful. I am a registered Indy so I didn't have an axe to grind over Palin but my lord....the media is now so "enthralled" withitself that it is supposed to be the "know all" "see all"....lousy reporting folks at CNN, ABC, NBC and the list goes on. BTW this was a great article!

Anne
You need a brain to be stupid.I think the goat humper lacks a brain.

Rendell is a sleazebag, a phony,
and a crook anyway. However, I agree that his remarks reported here are not worthy of comment. If CNN wants to embarrass Gov. Rendell, they should start poking around Harrisburg and Philadelphia.

Parker asked
"Wonder why, in a survey reported by the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, ONLY 28 percent said they 'believed all or most' of what they see on CNN?"

With Clinton News Network, I'm grossly-surprised it was that high.

journalist?
brown is NOT a jounalist. that is an insult to true journalists........now if we could just find a true journalist.

roy

Well done Star!!!
I have repeatedly written CNN to comment on Brown's double standard. She should have any licences which allow her to cast aspercions on people's (i.e., conservatives) characters. Her hateful liberal elitist standards also painted a bull's eye on Sarah Palin. Should be ashamed of being a female.

Janet Napolitano
It is impossible to reason or deal with fact or TRUTH when one's antagonist possesses a conscience, ONLY OF CONVENIENCE, in which, truth becomes whatever you define it to be. Such attributes belong to those without DIGNITY and CHARACTER and I suspect such a description fits NAPOLITANO like a 'tailor-made' suit! When one is UNAWARE that such a description 'fits them to a T', they evidence neither character nor conscience based upon universal truths; something such as a severe, irreparable character disorder!

Regardless of that comment
I will be glad when Rendell is no longer governor of PA.
He promised that gambling would bring homeowners $1 billion a year in property tax relief. What gambling has brought us is no tax relief and a new tax to provide more money to the governor and to the legislators who own the casinos.

Good article by Star--
The libs will never understand common sense period until they become victims of their own corruption.

Solid top to bottom
24 hrs a day of CNN but only a 1 of C. Brown hardly defines what the camera shows. She follows and works for Dobbs, hardly a Lib. Still waiting for the REAL conservative network, not CINO Fox.

Ms. Starr has produced a masterpiece of concise and factual telling of that sordid episode.
I watched it all (hearings)with a detached perspective and truly did not know what was going on. It seemed so abstract. I got the impression that much of the play was performed in the dark.
Clearly it wasnt pretty and no one came out looking good. As far I can tell no laws were broken or even bent. Perhaps time has made Ms. Napolitano mellow in her skin. The job she has been given leaves no room for second guessing or second chances.

Response to SVARA @ 14:00
"The libs will never understand common sense period until they become victims of their own corruption."

You should have stopped before the "until".

Where's the Substance?
It's hard for Americans to take the news entertainment world seriously as they all want to be talk show hosts and funny and cute rather than reporters for the most part. The reason people turn to talk radio and alternative news and internet is because they don't find any substance nor do they find any balance on the issues and very little truth or real issues addressed as they slanted the news so far left for Obama that no one could have competed against the most unfair playing field ever seen on American news during a presidential campaign.
Who cares about what kind of dog will be living at the White House or what the First Lady is wearing when most people are having to give up their animals because of losing their jobs and homes and many people can't afford to shop for a new dress for the holidays? Where's the substance?

No$, you must have NOBrains,
Napolitano is an open borders, let them all in, freak! Now she is in charge of "Homeland Security"?? Give me a break. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the hen house!

Well, it was nice while it lasted, goodbye USA.

Napolitano
defended that false accuser? I saw those hearings, but I wasn't paying attention to the identity of Hill's lawyer as I had to stop every so often and throw up. High tech lynching indeed. Well, at least, JN is not going to be our next Attorney General.

Napolitano pick is insulting
I live in AZ and let me say that choosing the open border, illegal alien loving Napolitano as head of Homeland (I hate that term. What is this Russia?)Security is a joke. The security of this country will cease to exist with her in charge. But The One needs supporters for his plans to reduce our military to a token force while creating a Domestic Security Force of 250,000 people. How many members of ACORN are there? Approx. 250,000. Coincedence? I think not.

wiseone
I didn't say that Thomas should not have been on the court because of this dispute, I said that who was telling the truth about the Thomas Hill disagreement was unclear, and that people's views were not based on evidence.

But talking about amazing, do you really not see the difference between a consenual affair and sexual harassment?

If Hill was telling the truth would you consider it fortunate that Thomas is on the court because of his political views?

I did think it was a bit of an insult to blacks to appoint someone whose main accomplishment up to that point had been a willingness to slander other blacks to support conservative claims. This is someone who began his career by inaccurately holding his sister up as an example of Reagan's welfare queen, and never correcting the record when his sister used her time on welfare to get the education she had had to put off because her family put all of their resources into getting him an education.

That was about as slimy a political act as one can imagine. But I do not think that the indeterminate Hill hearings were a basis for not putting Thomas on the court. And as far as I can remember, the senators who voted against Thomas did not use it as such. They pointed to his positions and qualifications (or lack thereof).

Campbell & All Bias All Bull
This gal gets on my last nerve! He manner of talking,an underbite or something,bothers me. But what she says really frosts me. A liberal married to another liberal.

Her show,just like every other show on every other channel,except FOX ,is stacked with liberals with a token conservative. That is unbiased. Oh yeah?

Rendell is just like all Democrats,very partial,but not as nasty as some. He was just not PC enough for Brown.Her show was and is an ad agency for Obama. Nothing more and nothing less.

28 %
Could it be because CNN has been caught not relating the true facts? Actions have consequences. A good many people evidently do not know that.
Donald W. Bales

For Lon
"But talking about amazing, do you really not see the difference between a consenual affair and sexual harassment?"

Yes Lon, I know the difference. You are the one having trouble making this distinction. Or is it just a case of selective memory?

Allow me to refresh that memory. When Bill Clinton lied (about sex) under oath it was at a hearing for a lawsuit against him by Paula Jones FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT.

Aside from being a serial sexual predator, Clinton was sued specifically for sexual harassment.

But you libs just wash all that down the memory hole by claiming "it's just sex".

No Lon, it was sexual harassment and then perjury and obstruction of justice to cover it up.

When Nixon used obstruction of justice to cover up a two-bit burglary every lib screamed for his removal from office. But when a Democrat Prez obstructs justice "it's just sex".

It's no wonder then that you deem unsubstantiated allegations against Thomas as "sexual harassment" but Clinton's proven crimes are nothing more than "consensual sex". You don't even acknowledge the adultery.

It's apparent that to a liberal the difference between harassment and consensual sex is that when the accused is a Repub or a Con it's harassment, but when the accused is a Dem it's consensual.

Try, just once, to apply the same standards to everyone. I can tell you from experience it won't kill you.

A deja vu moment;
Obama said he will bring us hope.
Obama said he will bring us change.
Obama said he will bring us tax cuts.

After the election, Obama said:

Oops, I can't give you help.
Oops, I can't give you the change you need.
Oops, I can't give you tax cuts, only tax increases.

Fast Eddie Rendell said, to get gambling passed:

Homeowners will get one billion dollars in property tax relief.

Legislators who voted for gambling and who bought into casinos said:

Homeowners will get one billion dollars in property tax relief.

After gambling was passed, Fast Eddie said:

2/3 of the money will go to Philadelphia and Pittsburgh for public transit.

Some of the money will pay for the Gambling Board which is doing such a good job selecting casino owners.

Some of the money will pay for the Gambling Bureaucracy to oversee the casinos.

Some of the money will pay for numerous programs such as Gambling Addiction Therapy.

We need to take ten million dollars from elsewhere in the budget to give to gambling.

The news media said:

We need a whole new tax to collect money not provided by gambling.

Some casino owners have criminal records and should have been checked by RICO.

Philadelphians don't want casinos where the Gambling Board decided to put them.

Homeowners got no property tax relief, only tax increases.

Deja vu to the nth degree.

Lon
First, I want to commend you for the reasonable and respectful tone of your posts. But, it seems to me that you are using a double standard in this case. "If Hill was telling the truth would you consider it fortunate that Thomas is on the court because of his political views?" Liberals told us Clinton's sexual misbehavior, for which there was proof, should be ignored, but this unproven allegation against Thomas can't be ignored? If the judicial committee was really more concerned with his lack of qualifications, then why trot out Hill in that tawdry attempt to discredit Thomas? The fact that no one else ever charged Thomas with sexual harassment is what convinced me he was being set up because of his political views. Sexual harassers usually don't have only one victim.

One more for Lon
Lon writes:

"I didn't say that Thomas should not have been on the court because of this dispute, I said that who was telling the truth about the Thomas Hill disagreement was unclear, and that people's views were not based on evidence."

From "Slander" by Ann Coulter.

"Immediately following the hearings, 69 percent of women believed Thomas rather than Hill. ( A "Newsweek" reporter wrote in the liberal "New Republic" magazine that, among co-workers that knew boththomas and Hill, the vote was "20 - 1").

There was nothing "unclear" about the Thomas - Hill dispute. 69% favored Thomas. But whenever the left loses a poll (or a vote) they refuse to admit defeat. They cry foul and demand recount after recount. And even though Thomas won confirmation in a Democrat-majority Senate leftist whiners like Lon continue to insist it was "unclear".

During the hearings Thomas came across as credible and professional. Hill came across as the nutty sl*t she was. And a gold-digger seeking a career boost besides. And she was aided and abetted by Janet Napolitano, who may have even subourned perjury in her effort to smear Thomas. But all libs like Lon can do is continue to smear Thomas.

And one more for Lon
In reference to your remark about Thomas Clarence's vote on Partial Birth Abortion:

There is never a medical reason to induce labor - allowing a woman to endure the course of labor, followed by the delivery of a LIVING infant's torso, then halting the process of birth in order to pith the child's brain with scissors, followed by the insertion of a vacuum nozzle to extricate the brain matter, and finally, the expulsion of a DEAD baby. There is never a medical reason for this procedure. NEVER.


Rich Not wealthy
if you are still out there let me buy you the ticket out of the USA that you so deserve.

THANKS FOR A GREAT ARTICLE
Star, I hope you will keep a close eye on Napolitano for us as she destroys the security of our homeland. Please Let us know every detail of her nefarious dealings. We need to keep a careful, accurate record of all Democrat stupidity and incompetence as ammo for the 2010, 1012 elections.

CNN'S FAR LEFT ORGY

It starts with Rick Sanchez in the afternoon and of course continues with the rantings of
Jack Cafferty. Despite a short interlude of
sanity with the honorable Lou Dobbs, it is
continues once he is relieved by the Liberal
Femi-Nazi Campbell Brown who hides behind a
seemingly innocent smile of deceit.

The Campbell Brown show is mostly Bias and Bull. You would not know it by its headline
but when you filter out all the Goody Tooh
Shoes niceties of Brown's smile and the
Far Left twinkle in her eye its obvious that
she is putting on a regular Liberal Democrat
Show like her father did in Louisiana after
being indicted as the Commissioner of Insurance for bribery and lying to the FBI while being questioned.

Recently, I heard Ted Turner comment that he never ran CNN with anchors who freely injected their own opinions about issues and people. He commented further that he felt it was the job of CNN to deliver the news and let the viewers
make their own opinions. However, lately CNN's new owners appear to have given a green light for anchors like Campbell Brown to lecture her audience and scold those who do not measure up to her Far Left Bull and Biased views.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.