Tricksy dems and their accusations

  Caught in the latest wave of shocking democrat stories to be revealed is Clarence Thomas. Some old ALLEGED girlfriend, who happens to be a democrat operative, has written a book, now that she is no longer in any "danger" of damaging HER caree. In the book, she ALLEGES that Clarence Thomas was obsessed with porn and, of course, her. 
  The Washington Post, with their impeccable journalistic standards, has printed an article about her with the title "Clarence Thomas's Ex-Girlfriend Lillian McEwen speaks out," without question that she is indeed his ex girlfriend. 
  Suddenly a raft of ex-s is pouring out of closets with dastardly information about conservatives. 
  If you've ever heard Clarence Thomas speak and his life story, particularly stories about his grandfather, you would find these grandiose self-aggrandizing, victimology stories very difficult to believe. Newsbusters has the background behind the ALLEGED victim and the ethics of Washington Post's coverage of this twenty year old "affair."

Would the Post have considered it fair if a Republican Senator had asked Elena Kagan this year to describe which porn flicks she had seen? Why it's still revisiting vague and weak allegations that Thomas was "obsessed with porn" is a mystery -- and an outrage. On the front page, on the same day, in the same paper, the Post is highlighting Bill Clinton campaigning for Democrats, with no revisitation of his extensively proven sexual obsessions.

  Rand Paul has an anonymous woman alleging bizarre stories about him in college. Though this alleger seems to be more believable in that she is poo-pooing the magnitude of the Aqua Buddha story, she is willing to come forward and besmirch someone's career behind the mask of anonymity because, again, it might hurt HER career. 
   Conveniently anti-Christian in their allegations, the stories being circulated are specifically geared to turn Christians off from Paul. Apparently the alleged 30 year old college pranks of a respected board certified opthamologist (but WHICH board????????) are of great interest to the United States voting electorate. And, hey, let's make all these races national,eh, because the power of democrats is waning nationally and the media doesn't like that.
  Question: If accusers are unwilling to come forward publicly and substantiate their damaging allegations with proof and facts at the time the supposed incident happened because they are worried about damaging their own careers, why should we believe anything they say, when they obviously have a slanted self-centered world view? Their motives are obvious: damage someone else's career without proof, with impunity and with no cost to themselves.
  What's not to believe?
WHOOPS! Another one just surfaced over at GAWKER.