JUDGE THOMAS BASHING: THE DIRTY SIDE OF POLITICS

At the heart of sexual harassment charges against Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas is the issue of justice. Under American law, a person is supposed to be presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.

But Thomas has been tried and convicted in a kangaroo court called the national press, aided by liberal senators and their staff members who oppose Thomas' nomination.

The witnesses have taken the stand on dozens of news broadcasts and told bits and pieces of events that allegedly occurred nearly a decade ago.

The result is a national disgrace.

Now, in a snowballing of senatorial "concern," the vote has been delayed. We can only hope that in the next 48 hours Clarence Thomas can face his accuser and sort out this fiasco.

The American public has a right to know: Why was this accusation if so damning held until the last minute? The excuse cannot be one of mere politics. If 11th hour smear tactics have become common~place in American politics, then something is terribly wrong with our system.

Anita Hill's affidavit and the FBI report were given to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee well before the panel voted on the Thomas nomination Sept. 27. After a briefing on the FBI report, no committee member requested further investigation or delay in the committee's vote, according to committee Chairman Sen. Joseph Biden Jr.

What has changed to make this accusation so shocking to various committee members today? Several senators discounted Hill's accusations last month after seeing phone records of numerous calls Hill made to Thomas well after the supposed harassment had taken place.

But now some senators have latched on to this accusation in a seemingly last-ditch effort to derail the nomination.

There are other interesting facts that many of the national broadcast media have failed to fully illuminate and some senators have apparently chosen to ignore. Tuesday's Wall Street Journal reported that Hill transferred to the EEOC to work with Thomas after the alleged harassment had occurred.

The Journal reported that after becoming a law professor, Hill asked Thomas for help collecting information about equal-employment opportunity cases. She also invited him to make a trip to Norman, Okla., to speak to her law students last spring, which he did. Do these sound like the actions of a woman who had been sexually harassed?

This entire incident resembles an election-eve ploy to discredit a candidate. And the U.S. Senate fell for it.

The FBI could find no evidence to support the harassment. The president has not wavered from his full support of Thomas. The nominee has forcefully denied the allegation in a sworn affidavit. And yet one unsubstantiated accusation from nearly a decade ago has ground this nomination process to a standstill.

Analysts complain about colorless candidates and bland nominees. But with almost certain character assassination in the wings, can we blame reputable men and women for not seeking public office? How many more nominees must be smeared before the American public calls for a stop to these unscrupulous tactics?

Even if Thomas is cleared in the next few days through a national forum, we have to wonder if he'll ever regain his good name. The facts are these: it's easy to sling mud, but it's hard to wash it away. This national disgrace should anger us all.