Noemie Emery “ ‘Believe the woman’ didn’t mean believe all women, all the time. But this is an era of slogans, and we’re paying the price for that.” So spoke an adviser to one of the women now being considered as Joe Biden’s running mate, quoted by Politico. In other words, "believe the woman" was a lie.
"What they meant was, "Believe the woman when she’s with our party and the man she's accusing is a conservative who might vote against us on the Supreme Court." So Anita Hill was a saint, whereas Paula Jones (who got a nice, hefty sum out of Bill Clinton) was "trailer-park trash." Juanita Broaddrick could not get a hearing, and Gloria Steinem wrote in the New York Times that President Clinton, because of his party and his stance on abortion, should get a pass, depending upon whom he had pawed.
"Now, the woman to be disbelieved is Tara Reade, a one-time Biden aide who was fired in 1993 soon after she claimed Biden raped her, with just a little more evidence than Christine Blasey Ford had against Brett Kavanaugh, which, in that case, was nothing at all. If this seems like deja vu, it’s because that it is, case one being the Lewinsky affair and the Clinton impeachment in 1998, seven years after the Hill-Thomas hearings, with the Kavanaugh buzz-saw occurring in 2018.
"Each time, Democrats believed in the woman, sight unseen, when the man involved was a conservative who seemed on his way to a Supreme Court appointment. They disbelieved when the man was a Democrat either in the White House or trying to get there. Does this sound kosher to you?
"This time, the situation emerging is still more complex. Biden, before this, had promised to pick a woman to run for vice president, and every last woman who fits that description is already on the record as a fervid opponent of Kavanaugh and as a supporter of Blasey Ford's allegations. This means that each one will have to explain, many times over, why Blasey Ford was believable with no evidence whatsoever, whereas Reade is not.
"What they meant was, "Believe the woman when she’s with our party and the man she's accusing is a conservative who might vote against us on the Supreme Court." So Anita Hill was a saint, whereas Paula Jones (who got a nice, hefty sum out of Bill Clinton) was "trailer-park trash." Juanita Broaddrick could not get a hearing, and Gloria Steinem wrote in the New York Times that President Clinton, because of his party and his stance on abortion, should get a pass, depending upon whom he had pawed.
"Now, the woman to be disbelieved is Tara Reade, a one-time Biden aide who was fired in 1993 soon after she claimed Biden raped her, with just a little more evidence than Christine Blasey Ford had against Brett Kavanaugh, which, in that case, was nothing at all. If this seems like deja vu, it’s because that it is, case one being the Lewinsky affair and the Clinton impeachment in 1998, seven years after the Hill-Thomas hearings, with the Kavanaugh buzz-saw occurring in 2018.
"Each time, Democrats believed in the woman, sight unseen, when the man involved was a conservative who seemed on his way to a Supreme Court appointment. They disbelieved when the man was a Democrat either in the White House or trying to get there. Does this sound kosher to you?
"This time, the situation emerging is still more complex. Biden, before this, had promised to pick a woman to run for vice president, and every last woman who fits that description is already on the record as a fervid opponent of Kavanaugh and as a supporter of Blasey Ford's allegations. This means that each one will have to explain, many times over, why Blasey Ford was believable with no evidence whatsoever, whereas Reade is not.
Note that Ford told no one her story until 30 years passed, whereas Reade spoke to a number of people only days later. They cannot, of course, vouch for the truth of her story, but can at least say it was told at the time.
"Reade also gave a time, date, and place to her story; Blasey Ford can’t remember the day, month, or year when her incident happened, or the house where it happened. Blasey Ford cited the names of the people she says were in the house at the gathering, but no one she mentioned remembered the house, or the party, or even one like it. No one could recall seeing Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh at any occasion at all. No one can prove that Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford did not meet on some occasion, but no one can prove that Reade’s story’s not true.
"Given this, an impartial observer has to conclude that Reade’s story is probably more likely true because she gave a time and a place to her story, seemed disturbed to contemporaneous observers, and told others about it. Any woman who believes Blasey Ford and not Reade does not believe in "believing the woman." And the woman chosen by Biden to run right beside him will be "paying the price" for the lie." . . .
"Reade also gave a time, date, and place to her story; Blasey Ford can’t remember the day, month, or year when her incident happened, or the house where it happened. Blasey Ford cited the names of the people she says were in the house at the gathering, but no one she mentioned remembered the house, or the party, or even one like it. No one could recall seeing Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh at any occasion at all. No one can prove that Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford did not meet on some occasion, but no one can prove that Reade’s story’s not true.
"Given this, an impartial observer has to conclude that Reade’s story is probably more likely true because she gave a time and a place to her story, seemed disturbed to contemporaneous observers, and told others about it. Any woman who believes Blasey Ford and not Reade does not believe in "believing the woman." And the woman chosen by Biden to run right beside him will be "paying the price" for the lie." . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment