This Kennedy ‘How long is an initial period of service’ line of questioning regarding Vanguard is absolutely absurd.
Kennedy wants an exact time period for what constitutes initial period, which is idiotic when you point out that 13 years later is not the initial period. These are some pretty lame attempts to whip up controversy over something with which Alito has done nothing unethical. Go read the Stuart Taylor piece again.
Why are the Democrats so god damned incompetent?
*** Update ***
And now they are trying to smear him with something someone else wrote that he never even read. Amazing. I don’t even like Alito and find this behavior by Kennedy absurd.
*** Update ***
Apparently this has already been investigated, and Kennedy is subpoenaing records which contain nothing:
Mr. Morgan’s memorandum and other records of Concerned Alumni are contained at the Library of Congress in the papers of William A. Rusher, a leader of the group and a former publisher of National Review.
Those records and others at Mudd Library at Princeton give no indication that Judge Alito, who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, was among the group’s major donors. He was not an active leader of the group, and two of his classmates who were involved and Mr. Rusher said they did not remember his playing a role.
But in an application for a promotion in the Reagan administration in the fall of 1985, Judge Alito was asked to provide information about his “philosophical commitment” to administration policies and listed his membership in Concerned Alumni.
There is no there, there.
*** Update ***
LMAO. Arlen Specter is now reciting the quote I just posted above.
*** Update ***
Caught in a lie, Kennedy now says that it was Alito’s incomplete answers which required this follow-up. Alito’s answers were clear- ‘I had minimal involvement with this group, and I was really only concerned about the ROTC issue, and I was unaware that they believed in all these other things amd don’t endorse those beliefs.’
Unbelievable. These Democrats could make Jack the Ripper look sympathetic.
Otto Man
Why are the Democrats so god damned incompetent?
The Republicans have proven that incompetence is a great way to succeed at the polls. I’m sure the Democrats are just trying to follow suit. If they can prove that they, too, are incompetent boobs, maybe they can have the same success that Bush has had.
Steve
I don’t see where in the Taylor piece he explains why it’s ok to promise Congress, under oath, that you will recuse yourself in a certain class of cases, and then to break that promise once you get on the bench. I don’t think it’s the end of the world, but I don’t think it means nothing, either.
I also think Rotunda, the law professor quoted by Bainbridge, is quite mistaken about the ethical issue.
jg
Kennedy is always wrong. Right?
Isn’t it Kennedy’s job to make the case that this guy would be a bad judge? Does he have to do it in a way that would satify those who hate his guts?
ppGaz
Apparently people around here think that a confirmation hearing is for entertainment, like Regis and Kelly.
It’s politics, it’s theatrical, it’s manipulative. Questions will be asked in order to get the respondent to trip up or make a slip. Fishing will be done.
How do you expect to have a grown-up government that takes responsibility for things, when the citizenry treats the processes as if they were Gilligan’s Island reruns?
As long as citizens are going to act like cable customers, government will easily manipulate them and fool them into doing things like starting wars for the wrong reasons, or mouthing words like “sanctity of marriage.”
Grow up for crissakes!
jg
I haven’t been watching since, well tons of reasons but is it true that some senators are using their time to air out their voice box and then at the end ask a Jeff Gannon type question?
How is he getting around saying something on a job app onlt so he could get the job (dishonest right?)?
Steve
Armando commented this morning:
He is absolutely right that we are not playing a game here where the nominee gets confirmed unless he screws up and says something that shocks the conscience.
This is typical of the media, which loves scoreboard-watching and which sits around openly cheering for some good theatre to take place. However, the Democrats have set this dynamic up somewhat by remaining muted in their criticism of Alito prior to the hearing. If Alito says nothing of consequence, and the Democrats oppose him, how will it make any sense that they didn’t levy their valid criticisms before the hearing even took place?
To my mind, there are a number of good reasons to oppose Alito. This nomination will be an excellent test of the Democrats’ ability to formulate a clear, unified message and to take a stand based on it. The smart money says they won’t do it, of course.
John Cole
yes, and he should do it by making a case, not barking about things that are false or inconsequential.
Ancient Purple
Almost as absurd as Alito saying a mentally handicapped person who was harassed at work and sexually assaulted at work didn’t deserve his day in court because his attorney filed a bad brief and the mentally handicapped person should have hired better legal counsel.
Almost.
ppGaz
Well, you’re making a huge assumption, that this is the correct time and place for that. I’m a confirmed Dem, and I certainly don’t agree that it is. In fact, I’d argue that it is a very bad time and place for that. Unless Alito shoots himself in the leg, which now looks beyond even remotely likely to happen, or somebody pulls a surprise out of a hat — a la Anita Hill — Alito is going to be confirmed and should be confirmed. Whether you like him or not, philosophically.
Zifnab
I don’t know how many of you have been watching the hearings, but from my perspective the Democrats (minus Joe Biden who just likes to hear himself talk) have been hammering Alito hard and soundly. Chuck Shummer in particular grilled Alito on his opinion on Roe v. Wade, and when Alito clammed up and refused to either validate or invalidate his old 1985 statement about the ruling needing overturning, Shummer still managed to drag him out on the issue.
Fienstien, Shummer, and Fiengold all nailed Alito on Executive Powers, Starie Decisis (apparently Alito is not so firmly behind it as Roberts claimed to be), as well as civil rights issues.
If you want to talk about someone being neurotic, go listen to Lindsey Graham cheerlead for Bush ad nauseum during the hearings. I think even Alito was somewhat shocked by Graham’s assertions concerning the invalidity of the Geneva convention and the rights a President has concerning wiretapping.
If anything, Graham’s near delusional right-wing Limbaugh-esque rantings made me feel MORE confident in Alito as a Supreme Court nominee. I couldn’t help view Alito as more of a Renquist and less of a Thomas or Scalia after that particular line of questioning. That is to say, he seemed conservative, but not completely shilled out.
moflicky
Is it his job? no. I’m pretty sure the job desciption of the senior democrat senator on the judicial committee doesn’t contain the words “make the case that this or any republican nominee would be a bad judge”.
No, his job is to ask fair questions and judge the answers and vote up or down.
ppGaz
Can you toss me the name of the case and a link if you have one? thanks AP
ppGaz
What makes us think that Graham didn’t plan it to have just that effect, to disarm opponents?
While it may seem like a stretch, when it comes to Republicans these days, I put nothing past them, because they will stop at nothing.
Blue Neponset
You are wrong. His job is to represent the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the United States Senate. Being a resident of the Commonwealth I can assure you that Senator Kennedy is representing me in an acceptable manner.
ppGaz
Christ, either we’ve invented a new Darrell, or this is Darrell in drag …. or a very good spoof, maybe.
The Senator (any Senator) is obligated to do exactly what he wants to do, ask what he likes and vote as he likes, as long as these actions are within the bounds of the Senate’s rules.
Any other description of his “job” is just nonsense and should be ignored …. like everything else you say.
Doug
The Kennedy line of questioning was pretty stupid. But, then Hatch’s earlier line of questioning where he made a big deal out of “initial term of service” was pretty stupid too.
As I understand it, with respect to the Vanguard issue, Alito’s defense has been that he feels like he was technically within ethical boundaries to sit on the Vanguard case but the reality was he just wasn’t paying much attention to the conflict issue. Had the issue been raised in his mind, he would have recused himself. Basically, “oops, sorry.” A fair enough response, in my mind.
Then Hatch starts going on about an application of some sort that mentioned “initial term of service.” After railing about this for awhile, Hatch asks Alito, “do you consider 12 years to be within the ‘initial term of service’?” To which Alito responded “no.”
So that’s dumb of Hatch for opening the door to the line of questioning implying that Alito was hiding behind the technicality. But it was also dumb of Kennedy to wasted so much time on it when it was pretty clear that Alito wasn’t hiding behind that — Hatch was just implying that he could hide behind it if he wanted to.
Then Kennedy starts going on and on about some Princeton organization that Alito can’t remember having any active part in. If Kennedy has some evidence socked away that Alito was a full-throated member of the organization, then maybe his approach makes sense. As it is, Kennedy’s reading of racist and otherwise repugnant columns appearing in the organization’s newsletter just looks desperate.
Keep in mind that I’m predisposed to like the Democrats these days. But Kennedy’s approach just looked silly.
ppGaz
Full throated? Jesus, I had to spit my coffee on that one.
Alito is getting grilled on the Princeton thing precisely because the group was radical and because he is doing such a good job of dodging the question.
Otto Man
I love his claim that he joined CAP not in support of their central theme (keeping blacks and women out of Princeton) but rather because he was so upset that the ROTC had been kicked off campus.
When Alito graduated in 1972, the ROTC had been restored to Princeton. The only way that could be a reason for his subsequent support of CAP is if he’d somehow perfected a means of time travel.
Steve
I really can’t believe that someone joins an openly racist and sexist organization, whose goal is to stop their noble university from being sullied by the presence of women and minorities, then that person boasts about it on a job application years later, and people are like “well, if he wasn’t making the racist comments himself, it’s silly to bring it up.”
This is not a case where he belonged to the Auto Club and there happened to be racist people in the Auto Club. This was an organization whose fundamental goal was to return Princeton to its white male tradition. There’s a certain type of person who boasts about belonging to such an organization, and I don’t like hanging around that certain type of person. And, by the way, it says a lot about the Reagan Administration that a job applicant believed they would consider membership in this organization to be a positive.
Lines
I for one would like to hear more about his participation in the Princeton group. But really how far away from the College Republican’s around the US were they? Doesn’t seem like much, sometimes.
a guy called larry
Gee, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Doug
Well, perhaps I stand corrected if CAP’s central theme when Alito joined was keeping blacks and women out of Princeton. I simply know nothing about the organization.
scs
I agree that he should be quizzed about this membership. Now is the time to air out all controversies that might come up any time in the future. In my opinion, as long as the Senators remain within the bounds of reason and civility, everything is fair game.
jg
Until he’s done how can you say he isn’t making a case?
Do you think its wrong that he didn’t recuse himself? If so how would you bring it up if you feel the guy you’re talking to will try to dodge the question?
Pooh
For my money, filibustering Alito would be a bad, bad idea for the dems, politically – the public does not sufficiently understand the reasons why Alito is potentially a very scary jurist for it to appear anything other than obstructionist. At a time when they have so many other things going for them, (NSA, Abramoff, run of the mill incompentence such as the new Medicare Bill and the mess that is the MHSA) this does not seem like the best dog to throw in the other guy’s back yard.
Re: the Vanguard thing, a total non-issue. Kennedy should STFU about it. My former ethics prof. wrote a lenghty piece about the issue months ago, saying just as much. He leans center-left FWIW…
Pat.R
“I really can’t believe that someone joins an openly racist and sexist organization, whose goal is to stop their noble university from being sullied by the presence of women and minorities, then that person boasts about it on a job application years later, and people are like “well, if he wasn’t making the racist comments himself, it’s silly to bring it up.””
There have been at least three former alumni of Princeton interviewed on television who all uniformly have exactly the same recollection about this organization as Alito. The suggestion that it was an “openly racist and sexist organization” is 100 % bullshit.
Paul Wartenberg
They’re not so much incompetent as they are disorganized: the Dems are polarized between their extremists on the left (hard-core anti-war and anti-Bush), the centrists in the middle (who are not so much progressive as they are cynical), and various old-school types who should have retired years ago but have stayed stuck in the flow like calcified chunks blocking the aorta of their own body politic.
The Dems should have seized on a proactive reform platform with all this Abramoff stuff capable of tearing down the GOP, but they’ve paralyzed themselves into stepping back and just act like bystanders to all of this. Until they can rally around a single person with the charm and skill needed (a FDR, a JFK, a Clinton), which is historically how the Dems usually operate, they won’t go very far.
Personally, I wonder if anyone’s asked Alito his interpretation on the Supreme Court ruling on Youngstown and on Nixon’s tapes, both of which established a President was not above the law. But anyways.
Neither party is looking too good this year, to be honest: the Republicans are so obviously corrupt, the Democrats so obviously disorganized. I think Perot brought out his Reform Party idea a decade too early…
The Other Steve
With all due respect. While I may agree that 13 years later is not the initial period.
What are you using to define ‘initial period’.
It’s a reasonable question. If Alito supposedly did nothing unethical, because he only promised to disavow himself during the initial period, then surely there must be a definition for initial period.
There’s nothing dumb about asking that. This isn’t kindy garten where the teacher asks you easy questions, it’s a bunch of lawyers. As such they are going to ask the definition of words you are using.
rachel
There’s something unsettling about Judge Alito, I’m just not sure what it is. I’m a nurse practitioner on a locked psychiatric unit and he reminds me of a certain type of patient, you know, the one that lives in a big house with his mother and 30 cats?
Steve
Alito has a recollection now? Goodness, how things change.
The things Kennedy is quoting are straight from the organization’s newsletter. It’s not like it’s from someone’s secret diary.
If I belonged to an organization in college and its newsletter said things like “all these minorities are ruining the school” I wouldn’t have been in that organization for 5 minutes longer. That’s me. It’s clearly not Alito.
Otto Man
Well, there’s no question that CAP was, first and foremost, about limiting the numbers of blacks and women admitted to the school. Check out this piece from a 1976 alumnus:
This isn’t the College Republicans or Young Americans for Freedom we’re talking about. This is an old boys’ network that was formed solely for the purpose of maintaining the “traditional Princeton” (i.e., few blacks, no women) and guarding against their future admission.
The Other Steve
Actually that’s not what disturbed me.
What bothered me was he didn’t know why he joined CAP. He kept repeating things like… “I think probably the reason why I joined was the ROTC issue. I don’t recall.”
How can you not recall?
I know why I joined the Cub Scouts and 4-H when I was a kid. I know why I joined the Computer Science Club in College.
He just doesn’t want to answer the question, which I think is telling.
p.lukasiak
John…
Bottom line on Vanguard is that Alito said he would recuse himself — then didn’t recuse himself.
In other words, Alito is a liar.
Now, you may not like Kennedy’s questions, but then Alito and his defenders are trying to make it seem like Alito isn’t lying by bringing up all sorts of technicalities. Blame Alito and his supporters — not Kennedy.
Alito is a liar. He ruled on a case that he had a personal financial interest in — and did so after promising under oath to recuse himself from any such cases.
….. plus he’s a right wing scumbag who will let the idiot in the White House get away with anything he wants in exchange for a seat on the Supreme Court.
The Other Steve
Nope, bad reasoning.
If Alito is a bad judge, then he’s a bad judge and the Democrats should do whatever they can to stop him.
If he’s just a mildly incompetent judge, then maybe they ought to just show their disdain by voting against him.
But deciding whether or not or how the public might react to your actions is bad reasoning, and it’s precisely this type of tea leaf reading that gives citizens a bad taste for Democrats.
Democrats need a fucking backbone.
Otto Man
Uh huh. Explain this:
And this:
Or this:
All bullshit, right?
demimondian
Yo, Pat! Can you point to the tv interviews? (And pointers to your own _700 Club_ don’t count.)
Otto Man
Agreed. The only thing that makes me madder than Alito’s evasions is the Democratic counterevasions. Take a fucking stand.
And someone put a cork in Biden before he talks himself hoarse.
Mr Furious
Yeah, that should be good enough for everybody! Are you fucking kidding me? How many “alumni” of John Kerry’s Vietnam unit came out of the woodwork spewing lies? What possible motive could anyone have for revising their “recollections” of college?
And, what “television” would that happen to be, by the way, FOX perhaps?
ppGaz
The people who know whether someone is a “bad judge” are lawyers and judges, not politicians, and not blogmeisters. I am not hearing from any of his peers that he is a bad judge. Is anyone else hearing that kind of information?
Otto Man
The Princeton student newspaper has some more insight into CAP:
But, again, three alumni appeared on TV — somewhere, supposedly — and said this isn’t true. So it must be bullshit.
Mr Furious
I’m with Otto and the other Steve. All backbone. All the time. If that means filibusster, do it. If you’re worried about the next nominee being worse, filibuster him/her too. Enough calculating.
Pooh
So Steve, we should filibuster, have them go nuclear, lose anyway. and then that’s the story instead of Crooked GOP, Presidential law breaking, etc.? Not only is Alito on the Court, but all the other crank nominees sail through, AND we look like obstructionist pussies. That doesn’t seem like a good plan to me.
(If you have better info than me that the GOP will not vote to abolish judicial filibuster, then that obviously changes my analysis…)
Ancient Purple
My pleasure, ppG. The case is Pirolli v. World Flavors, Inc. Here is a link that will get you started. (Note: PDF file.)
Sorry for the delay in response. Got called into a meeting at work.
scs
I’m imagining in those days, that was a pretty mainstream opinion by the ‘old order’. Alito should just admit that the group had those tendencies and just explain he has “grown” a lot in the following years. As an aside, Alito looks very young for his age I think. Hard to believe he was a student during those days.
Jorge
Did anybody else just see Joe Biden put on a Princeton hat as he asked a question?
Otto Man
In my mind, the words “obstructionist” and “pussies” are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I’d like to see the opposition party do some actual opposing, and I bet that if they did, the public would stop thinking of them as pussies.
The Other Steve
Well, first of all… I didn’t advocate filibuster.
But, second of all… If the Democrats do filibuster the story will be “Democrats are standing up for the rights of every day Americans by preventing this guy the GOP wants to ram onto the court from being there.”
And if the Republicans go Nuclear the story will be, “Republicans abuse their majority status.”
And even if they do, guess what? When Democrats win, which they will… Republicans won’t like the new rules they made up. Just like they aren’t liking the new rules they made up when opposing Clinton, which is why they *WHINE ENDLESSLY*.
If that’s not what the story is, then that’s the Democrats falt for not getting their PR machine out there ahead of the Republican Spin machine.
*STOP BEING A FUCKING COWARD! I HATE COWARDS! I AM NOT AFRAID OF THE RIGHT WING SPIN MACHINE BECAUSE THEY ARE FUCKING LIARS!*
Buy a backbone. They’re on sale at Walgreens for $12.99.
ppGaz
Thank you … I’ll read up on it now.
The Other Steve
Exactly.
Steve
Pooh, the Democratic problem since time immemorial is the endless agonizing over whether good things will happen if they take a stand.
Sure, the Republicans might invoke the nuclear option. Or they might lack the spine to do so. If it were that easy, they would have invoked it the last time.
I hardly think this story will drive the domestic spying scandal and everything else out of the headlines. More to the point, it’s not like the Democrats have been making any hay out of that scandal anyway. They’ve all been gunshy, yet again, afraid that they’ll come across as soft on terror if they take the position that the President should follow the law.
No one has a crystal ball. You can plausibly predict that taking a stand will have a good outcome or a bad outcome, depending on whether you’re a half full or half empty type of person. But if you sit around and wait to take a stand until you’re 100% confident it will pay off for you in the end, you’re hardly going to erase a reputation of lacking political courage, that’s for sure.
Mr Furious
Excellent points Steve and Otto.
Mr Furious
And the other Steve.
Steve
As for obstructionism, take a look at how many filibusters the Republicans engaged in during the 1993-94 legislative session, and take a look at how it turned out for them.
The Democrats are terrified of being “obstructionists” for one reason: Tom Daschle lost a reelection on that theme in a super-red state. Thank God they summoned enough courage to “obstruct” Bush’s plan to gut Social Security.
There is nothing per se bad about “obstructing” the majority agenda, it all comes down to the merits of what you’re obstructing. If the Democrats want to believe that the Republican agenda truly is the majority agenda in this country and they’ll get thrown out of office if they dare to oppose it, then they’ve already lost.
That’s not to say that Democrats should oppose Alito without making a case. There is a clear case to be made, but they need to find the discipline and courage to do it, a bunch of activists in the blogosphere can’t do it for them. That is why I said, above, that this is a test.
ppGaz
Okay, yes, that’s what I thought it was.
Well, I’ sure I’ll incur the wrath of the lefties here, but I don’t find that case convincing against the judge.
I find that Alito was standing up for standards of representation and court proceedings rather than trying to advance some anti-retarded-person (anti-liberal). I’ll find that it’s easier for me to suggest this because he was tagging along on a minority position (a dissent). No harm was actually done, in other words, to Pirolli by Alito’s writing. That’s a thin defense of my argument, I admit, but there it is.
I am not a lawyer, but my dad was a judge (a very liberal judge, as it happens) and I grew up in a house filled with judges and lawyers. I am inclined to see these things a little differently from the way the average person might see them, for that reason. I give judges huge leeway in these things. The law, and being a judge, is not as easy as people like Bill Frist or James Dobson might want you to believe.
Any person with a heart would sympathize with Pirolli here, but many a case has been wrecked by a lousy lawyer. That’s just the way the system works. And has to work.
Pooh
I see your points, but I disagree to an extent. Discretion, valour, etc.
Look if someone could pin him down on Executive deference, then we have something to go at. As it stands we don’t have any ‘good’ options, we just have to find the one that’s less bad.
Brian
Well, I like Alito enough to supoprt him, but I agree with you that the Democrats are demonstrating their incompetence.
Talk about bad lawyering in action.
scs
It’s all about credibility. If the Democrats already have an image of being obstructionist just for the sake of being obstructionists, or an image of engaging in obstruction for politics and not for principles, then they will not get as far with their criticisms. I think Democrats should instead work on coming up with good ideas and trying to lead, and taking responsibilites for their votes, and not concentrate on just being obstructionists.
Pooh
Brian agrees with me. I will now tear out my own toenails with a vice-grip.
Ancient Purple
Holy crap!
Did anyone just see the exchange between Kennedy and Specter?
In a nutshell, Kennedy moved the Chair (Specter) subpeona the Library of Congress for the records on CAP. Specter refused, saying this was the first time the request was made.
Kennedy cites a December 22, 2005 letter he sent Specter. Specter says Kennedy may have sent the letter, but he didn’t necessarily receive the letter and he has no recollection of the letter.
Kennedy then produces Specter’s written response to Kennedy’s 12/22/05 letter.
Specter then takes a break… obviously to wash the egg off his face.
Ouch.
srv
You know, would a Condi’s mushroom cloud over DC really be such a bad thing? Think of the opportunities to start over.
Ancient Purple
I disagree and stand by my observations, but I certainly won’t put my wrath upon you.
Yet.
:o)
Vladi G
So who do you find more absurd now, John, Kennedy or Specter the lying sack of crap?
Steve
John’s latest update makes my head spin. It’s laughable to deny someone access to records, and at the same time argue “obviously there’s nothing in there.”
The quote doesn’t even say that there’s nothing relevant in the papers. All it says is that Alito wasn’t one of the group’s biggest donors. I don’t think anyone is contending that he was.
What these papers will most likely provide is further evidence that this was a deeply racist, sexist organization that wanted to keep Princeton white and male, and that no one in their right mind could have belonged to the organization without realizing those were its values. Maybe I’m wrong, but you can’t keep the records under lock and key, on the one hand, and claim I’m wrong about the merits of what they contain, on the other hand.
Stormy70
The Democrats are really grasping at straws here. Even the NY Times is making fun of them.
John Cole
Steve-
Did you listen to Specter- he never denied him access to the papers. The caretaker of the records, Rusher, denied an anonymous request, but was more than willing to make them available to the committee. At any rate, they are getting them now. Also, the story I linked to portrays this is a pretty ugly group.
Ancient Purple
Awesome.
So there is really no difference between what Alito said and someone saying, “I had minimal involvement with the Neo-Nazis and I was really only concerned about helping them raise money to buy Christmas toys for the kids in the hospital, and I was unaware that they believed in all those other things and I don’t endorse their beliefs.”
Got it.
Doug
So with respect to the CAP records, does the argument go something like this: “There is nothing in there. You are a dumb idiot for thinking there is something in there. But you’ll have to trust me on that because I’m not going to let you see for yourself.”
Steve
I didn’t listen, John, because I’m stuck here at work. If the papers are going to be produced at this point, then it’s a moot point, they’ll say whatever they say.
I think you don’t realize, however, that there is a fundamental inconsistency in Alito’s position. On the one hand, he’s saying that he had no idea about all these other far-right positions CAP held. On the other hand, we have the undeniable fact that he put this membership on his resume, a decade later, in order to burnish his conservative bona fides.
I agree with one of the previous commenters that he should have just dismissed this as the kind of movement that young people stupidly get caught up in, and that he’s come to realize that he didn’t agree with their goals, even if he thought the membership would help him get a job in 1985. But for whatever reason, he didn’t say anything of the sort. I don’t think he can credibly maintain that he had no idea what they were about.
Perry Como
Alito was just quoting Alexander Hamilton. I’m sure their views on executive power align closely.
Brian
And I’m applying a severe melvin to myself here in my office. Unbelieveable!
Davebo
Amazing.
Spector is caught in a bald faced lie. So bald faced a lie in fact that his lie has been recorded, as such effectively, in the congressional record.
John “desperately seeking a excuse to continue mindlessly voting Republican” comes away from that with “Ah Hah! Kennedy caught in a lie!!!”
I used to hold out hope that John would eventually be forced to face the fact that Iraq was the biggest foriegn policy blunder in 50 years and finally, come to his senses.
Now I realizes he doesn’t give a shit. A slightly more reasonable Coulter with a slightly smaller adam’s apple.
SoCalJustice
The (future) justice certainly is blind.
It’s so cool when double Ivy-league educated, esteemed legal professionals, pretend to have moments of utter obvliviousness.
So cool and so believable.
Paddy O'Shea
Specter claimed he never saw the CAP records subpoena request. Kennedy turned around and “submitted for the record a letter from Specter’s staff responding to Kennedy’s letter.”
Looks like Specter’s staff has an arrangement similar to the one in the Bush White House. You know, the “don’t disturb the asshole with unpleasant facts” system.
Kennedy completely depantsed Specter today. Funniest moment in these hearings so far.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10802815/
Save our freedoms. Gut the Alito nomination.
Otto Man
John, I think the CAP records will reveal that the current party line — that it had nothing to do with opposing the admission of women and minorities in greater numbers — is utter bullshit.
That’s the point of subpoenaing the records, not to show that Alito (then right out of college and presumably not rich) was on par with the group’s “major donors” like right-wing multimillionaire financier Shelby Cullom Davis.
Davebo
Amazing. They are the minority party in both houses of congress and don’t hold the White House. Yet they are apparantly doing a poor job of “leading”.
The job of the minority party in this instance is, to obstruct. And they’ve done a so so job of it. They suceeded on social Security, failed miserably on the bankruptcy reform, and failed, though slightly less horrifically on the authorization for Mess O Potamia. But given the climate and lies at the time I only count off half points for that. Ok, 3/4 points.
Brian
I doubt you’ll want advice from a conservative, but Alito’s not being rammed down our throats, to paraphrase another commenter here. He’s going through the process that every nominee goes through, and it’s thoroughly democratic.
With all the ammunition that Bush is giving your side (NSA, cronyism, Iraq, etc.), is this where you want to draw the line with him? I would argue for putting energy into lower-hanging fruit and hammering on that instead of blocking Alito. Doing so only adds to the air of obstructionism, accurate or not.
Am I off base here?
John Cole
I actually think they did oppose women, and the Kirkpatrick piece I linked to clearly demonstrated that. I have stated there is nothing to show that Alito had more than a passing relationship with these folks, and that he was involved with them for the reasons he stated.
Davebo
Not really. But I don’t see them trying really to block Alito and in the end I believe he will be confirmed.
They just want to make sure the record shows that Bush’s nominee is, or was at least, a fairly racist and sexist dude. Like most in his network at the time.
Pooh
Arghhh, moving on to fingernails and nosehairs…
John Cole
Paddy-
DougJ- I am sick of your routine.
scs
Let me clarify. I realize they are a minority party. So when I say “lead”, I mean leadership in terms of ideas that reach the public. Come up with ideas on Social Security and healthcare, and how to solve the problems in the Middle East. Have Dem leaders publicize these ideas in the media, not give so many Bush is “a liar and a jerk” interviews. Of course obstruction is an important part of a minority party’s role, but it is just one part, and has to be balanced with positive ideas.
By the way, not to veer from the serious here, but I think I figured out why Alito looks so young. Botox. His eyebrows hardly ever rise. Kind of contributes to his acerbic look others have commented on. Okay off to do errand now.
Otto Man
I know you recognize the truth here, but the GOP spin machine is in full denial that CAP had anything to do with opposing women and minorities when it had everything to do with it. A full disclosure of their papers would help that.
But I really don’t buy his claim that he got involved in CAP after graduating because they wanted to bring back the ROTC to campus. You know why? Because when he graduated, the ROTC was already back on campus.
This guy bragged about his CAP involvement in the mid-1980s, and with good reason. Suddenly, he’s distancing himself from it and giving reasons that don’t hold water. Why?
SoCalJustice
Nothing besides his resume for his 1985 promotion application, where he lists his membership in the group.
Not an exact analogy, but it’s kind of like saying you had membership in the Klan but only because they’re “against immigration.”
Don’t we want important people (meaning people who will have huge affects on the lives of americans) to have, or demonstrate, at least some minimal amount of awareness about the groups they’re joining, even if it’s only a “passing relationship,” if such groups are outwardly racist/sexist?
Paddy O'Shea
Davebo: Nah. The Democrats are building a case for filibustering. And why not? With a fat handful of on-going Republican scandals maturing this year, plus the continuing slaughter that Bush led us to in Iraq, 2006 is going to be a very good year for the Democrats going into this November.
So why not make a stand on Alito? Going after Alito segues perfectly with the Bush White House spying scandal. The rationale? The Dems’r doing it because the Bush White House can’t be trusted with our Constitution and freedoms, and Alito is a toothless lapdog who would roll over a whine for a belly rub.
The Dems are go. And watch all the closet reactionaries shed their empathy suits and start howling like scalded cats.
Gonna be good. Real fucking good.
Ancient Purple
Am I the only one who thinks that allying yourself with any organization that agrees with you on issue X is the mark of a fool?
I can name a whole bunch of groups, associations, clubs and organizations that support some of the issues that I believe in. However, I am not joining the Communist Party USA because they have pro-minimum way hike rallies.
Davebo
Did it, dozens in fact. I think eliminating the cap was the best, but there were lots of them.
I assume you weren’t serious with this one right?
That’s a problem that for some odd reason is incredibly more complex than it was 4 years ago. And incredibly more difficult to solve. What’s your suggestion?
Again, did that, over and over.
I haven’t seen any senators give interviews in which they called Bush a liar or a jerk. Which is sad now that I think about it.
If you want to believe that Dems offer no ideas and only spout that Bush is a liar or a jerk that’s your perogative. It’s patently false, but it is the message the GOP has been injecting into you guys for a while so it’s understandable. If a bit lame.
John Cole
Why not? That excuse worked for Robert Byrd:
At any rate, snark aside, this ain’t the Klan, there is no evidence Alito was ever really involved with them, and there is no record that he was as bad as Kennedy wants us to think he was.
Barbar
Alito was in ROTC, and he joined CAP just because they would return ROTC to Princeton even though they were already there? Sure, it all makes perfect sense!
scs
I read and watch much media (and not just Fox fyi) and have not seen much of the positive Dem ideas lately. I’m not saying that they don’t ever come out. I just think Dem’s have a little bit of a PR problem in that when they do give their ideas, not a lot of it is geting through to the general public. So maybe a little more ideas and a little more often, and a little more volume. For instance, I saw an interesting article in the NYT yesterday on how the Chile experiment in SocSec isn’t working out that well. That should be something maybe Dems could go to the media with this week or next and discuss that and then discuss other possible SocSec options. Anyway, just my impression. Feel free to disagree.
Brian
So, records will be presented that Alito doesn’t even own, but that he had some relationship to in the distant past, to shoot him down a candidate for the SC?
Sounds like The Patriot Act in action!
SoCalJustice
John,
If you go down to your thread about Heath Ledger dissing WV, you will see that I brought up Robert Byrd as an example that shames your state, and got slammed by some for it.
Neither Byrd, nor Alito, get a pass in my book. CAP is terrible. The KKK is horrendous. At least Byrd acknowledges (even though he to this day minimizes his role) that he knew what the KKK was.
You can’t even get that much out of the next associate justice of the U.S. supreme court.
I love how we have to believe here’s this eminently qualified, brilliant jurist who just had these pockets of utter cluelessness.
I just want to see some honesty.
SoCalJustice
There’s no doubt that Alito is a smart guy.
He’s also a liar and a coward, at least when it comes to CAP.
Brian
There may be some truth your comment, but spray perfume on shit, and it’s still shit. But the Dem’s do have a PR problem to an extent. Howard Dean is Exhibit A in that realm. He cannot help but do or say something that only undermines his message. I know that the Dem’s can do better, and they will once they get some leadership and representation that can articulate their ideas in a way that won’t go down like shit when it’s swallowed.
Otto Man
You think this is anything new? Skeletons from the closet are par for the course with these hearings. William Rehnquist had his anti-Brown draft opinion from the 1950s dredged up at both his hearings. Douglas Ginsberg was shot down because he’d smoked pot, and Clement Haynesworth because he’d supported segregation. Clarence Thomas had his record at EEOC investigated, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had to address her past work with NOW.
This is relevant. Alito is going to be deciding equal treatment cases in general and affirmative action cases in particular duing his time on the bench. Signing up with CAP — an organization opposed to both ideas — is a relevant part of his past.
SoCalJustice
Other than the fact that he felt the organization worthy of inclusion on a promotion application for a pretty important job.
But other than that, you’re right. There’s no evidence.
scs
Yes, I was a fan of Bill Clinton’s and hope the Dems can find someone like him again (without his downside).
Davebo
Well since that story was old old news 3 years ago it might explain why you haven’t been hearing about these ideas.
Otto Man
To pre-empt the inevitable claim that Ruth Bader Ginsburg got to avoid all questions on abortion when she was before the SJC, let me direct you to the Carpetbagger Report:
scs
Really? According to the article in the NYT, they have just now begun to realize this in Chile. Where did you hear about this before? Also when Bush brought it up for the campaign 2-3 years ago, the general media was not criticizing the plan and was instead talking about it’s success and the large rate of return it provided. Which is true in some cases. Unfortunately, younger and poorer people are not contributing as much as hoped and the management fees are too large, so the problems offset the gains.
ppGaz
There’s no proof of that. It’s speculation, and unsupportable at the present time.
The Other Steve
A lie?
Let me get this straight. GW Bush running around claiming Hussein had WMDs was not a lie, but simply a over enthusaistic exagerration.
But Ted Kennedy insinuating that Alito claiming he was a member of CAP when he really wasn’t, but why was it on his resume is a lie?
Yeah, I admit it’s kind of a bogus line of questioning and there’s no there there.
But a lie?
Christ, you’re a tool.
The Other Steve
Let me get this straight. Brian, who is clearly a partisan hack, wants Howard Dean to shut up?
Hmm… apparently Dean is getting a message out, and Brian is afraid of that.
Stop projecting your weakness, Brian, it’s not very appealing.
Mr Furious
Can we come up with a Godwin’s Law equivilent for dragging Robert Byrd into an argument for John’s sake?
ppGaz
This is from MSN money, and is a rather plain Jane (non political) look at the question of Chile’s experiment:
They go on to say:
Mr Furious
ppGaz, you sure are reaching waay over the fence for Alito today. Be careful leaning over there…
Is he your uncle or something?
I’m just kidding, but I find it interesting why you take certain tacks, and how far you go with them.
Barry
“Steve Says:
“I hardly think this story will drive the domestic spying scandal and everything else out of the headlines. More to the point, it’s not like the Democrats have been making any hay out of that scandal anyway. They’ve all been gunshy, yet again, afraid that they’ll come across as soft on terror if they take the position that the President should follow the law.”
The problem with the Democratic politicians (and many of the ‘wonks’, such as Matthew ‘Unloaded Gun’ Yglesias) is that they are waiting for the GOP to deliver itself into defeat. But, given passivity on the part of these Democratic politicians, the GOP has the sweet gift of time to recover their balance, and pull themselves out of the jaws of defeat.
I can’t imagine how thoroughly the Republicans would have destroyed the Democrats if the tables had been turned. They’d have won this last presidential election, and would have eagerly investigated the living sh*t out of the actions of their predecessors. And the precedent that might be set by an administration investigating the actions of its predecessor wouldn’t bother them, because they’d know that the Democrats wouldn’t do that.
Gratefulcub
I read about it in the Nation. And again repeatedly during the Social Security Town Hall Tour 05.
As if a Chilean pension plan is a model for the US. A third world nation with a fraction of the population we have.
And, do you really think the way for Dems to ‘lead’ today is to talk about Social Security? People didn’t much care about SS when Bush did his 90 day tour, talking about nothing else. Now, we are at war, Alito is being confirmed, Abramoff is bringing down the House, NSA wiretaps, Scooter Libby, etc. To get a single seven second soundbite on Social Security, on one station, this week, the Dems would have to put on an all out blitz on SS, ignoring all the issues people care about. That is your idea for the dems?
And….
FILIBUSTER ALITO!!!
It is a political loser, I am sure. For once, that shouldn’t matter. This guy isn’t fit to be on the court, especially when we should be fighting back executive overreach. Some things are more important than politics. This is one of them. (For the record, I did support Roberts, so I am not just proposing a filibuster because he was nominated by Bush)
Maybe, just maybe, they would get a little public support for standing on principle even though it is a losing issue. Maybe some real live integrity would look good. Of course, they would blow it. It is as if the Democrats are scared of success.
ppGaz
Well, I’m a liberal Democrat. I wouldn’t have nominated him. But with Republican appointments, what I look for is the lawyerly qualities and whether the man is a good judge or not. If he is a good lawyer and a good judge, then you are probably going to be mostly okay, and there is probably nothing you are going to do to block him.
As far as I know, he is a good lawyer and a good judge. Not a liberal judge, because judging isn’t a liberal or conservative activity.
I also don’t happen to think that (a) an overturn of Roe is likely in any case, (b) it would be the end of the world if it happened , (c) the fate of the country will hang on SCOTUS in the next 25 years, or (d) that the next Dem president won’t get to make a SCOTUS pick or two.
I think the whole thing is hyped for the purposes of manipulation and division. I think a lot of what happens is just grist for the blahsphere and greatly overrated.
LBNL, I am not a knee-jerk liberal Democrat. I’m obnoxious and in-your-face in some debate scenarios, but my views are actually much more middle-of-road than you’d think. Not that anyone cares, but there it is.
LLBNL, I deliberately mix up my posting style from day to day to throw off the righties who only have one speed. Besides, using one style is boring, variety is more fun.
SoCalJustice
Let’s see.
Let’s see, we can either “speculate” that he’s a clueless, oblivious dolt or we can give someone with a bachelor’s degree from Princeton and a J.D. from Yale an ounce of credit for being at least partially aware of his surroundings.
Whatever.
scs
Okay I agree there is a lot going on now. But changing the subject every now and then to more bread and butter issues, not just SocSec, but any number of issues, and doing so periodically, could provide a fresh look at the Dems as the party who doesn’t just criticize and seize on the current scandal du jour, but takes time out to address real issues that effect ordinary people. I don’t want to be Dick Morris or Karl Rove here. I’m just saying my impression is, a more liberal sprinkling of the more boring, but important issues, might help. But again, that’s just me.
As to the Chile plan, yes the plan was brought up many times in the campaign and is not a new issue. What’s new is the studies that have recently come out from Chile grading its successes and failures. We now have a more definitive picture of how it works in real life.
Paddy O'Shea
GCub: Buck up, will ya? This is going to be great. It’s not just about some evasive nebbish named Alito, there are issues far bigger than that.
The issue that the Democrats are piecing together right now is based on the defense of our American Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Bush cannot be trusted with our Constitution, and for some very good and obvious reasons. And this slippery judge cannot be expected to his job in this regard either.
This is going to be an incredible struggle. I have never been prouder to be a Democrat.
Davebo
From the Christian Science Monitor, March of last year.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0314/p07s01-woeu.html
From the NY Times itself from January of last year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/business/worldbusiness/27pension.html?ex=1264482000&en=42c98585c86afe88&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
And there are dozens of more examples. I have some older ones on my home computer if you’d like them. It got a lot of coverage in 2005 during the SS debate.
The Other Steve
Maybe they should talk about Vince Foster and blowjobs?
You know. Things that effect real americans, and not just the current scandal du jour.
The Other Steve
The Chile model failing was reported on in early 2005 in response to Bush using it as an example of a wonderful thing.
The Disenfranchised Voter
This is all I’m gonna say about this issue.
Alito not recusing himself is not unethical by the legal standard. However, you are wrong to say that this issue is irrelevant, or that Alito acted ethically. He said he would recuse himself. He didn’t.
He went back on his word. End of story.
scs
Okay you all made me read the article again. These are some excerpts:
The things I bolded led me to the impression that the info was new. Whether this came out before, or what came out before, I was not aware of, as I had not seen an article on the Chile system for a while now.
Either way, whether this info is brand spanking new or not, we are geting distracted from my main point here, of Dems bringing up more bread and butter issues.
scs
Maybe you missed the part where I said I was a Clinton fan. I don’t think the blowjob thing worked for the GOP either, because if I remember correctly, Clinton had some of his highest ratings during the impreachment scandal. See what I mean? Negativity doesn’t work.
Paddy O'Shea
Check out this Alito ad! Running on CNN and MSNBC today.
http://political.moveon.org/donate/alito-QT.html
Mr Furious
Paddy, that’s a pretty good ad.
Alito should take a page from DeLay’s playbook and vow to “sue any station that airs it.”
The Other Steve
With all due respect. You were also a fan of Intelligent Design. For no apparent reason than you didn’t want to hurt anybodies feelings. You’re hardly a good judge of what works in politics.
Negativity works. Just ask the Republicans. In 15 years they have not offered anything remotely constructive or positive. It’s all been anti-this and anti-that.
The only thing the Democrats lack is message discipline and focus. They are all over the board, and they need to narrow it down to a few things. They also need to learn how to start stealing conservative arguments, because the GOP has made a lot of headway reframing conservative concepts with liberal words… I think the opposite can work as well.
scs
With all due respect, you don’t have a great memory. I was not a “fan” of intelligent design, per se, as I am basically an aethist. Maybe agnostic on a good day. However, I am above group think, and did not feel the need to denigrate or misrepresent the theory because I didn’t like the groups of people who liked it. And because I felt that many were, I felt the need to speak up for it. That’s why a person like me, in my own biased opinion, who is above this tribal warfare, is actually a good person to give political observations.
scs
Just take the last Presidential election as an example. You could not have found a more negative group of people then the Dem candidates last time. If it didn’t work for them, let’s face it, it doesn’t work.
Anyway, I want to qualify my statements. Broad strokes are juvenile. Negativity can work sometimes, but only in the right amount and circumstances and balanced with a positive agenda. The balance is what I think Dems are missing now.
ppGaz
I’d argue that we have the worst government I’ve seen in my five plus decades. It’s pretty hard to discuss it without sounding “negative.”
Negative is a spin word. The opposition is supposed to oppose. It’s what Republicans did when they were the opposition, and it’s the right thing to do, just like they said it was, then. They were right to use every means of opposition possible in the face of entrenched and intractable power. Democrats are right to do so now.
If an opposition party is not going to oppose, what is the point of having two parties?
scs
Okay case in point, I have Hardball on, and just 30 seconds ago, Chris Mathews (a Dem, or non-Republican) just complained that he didn’t know what Dems stand for. See what I mean?
Lines
You know, I actually think scs is on the edge of an epiphany there, a huge surge of personal growth that we’ll all be shocked at her sudden change tomorrow. I think if you all would work nicely with her, and explain things, she’s much more open today than she ever has been, and will most likely absorb some of the things that earlier would have just reflected off.
I know scs doesn’t like me, its not like many people here do, so I’m not too worried, but let me at least make some suggestions to scs to get things started:
The media is not liberal. That doesn’t mean its conservative, either. They are self-serving assholes with no agenda other than to make money by selling stories. Given this bit of information, you might realize that the reason you only hear the “hate hate” liberals is because it sells money. The liberals with ideas are powerless, so why give them time? Viewers tune out when the topic is complex and doesn’t immediately have an effect on their lives.
Once you get past the negative images that sell money, you can start evaluating and listening better. KOS isn’t the bible for liberals, its just a source to get a jump on something. Go there, scan, if something interests you, use it as a starting point. Do the same with the right wing sites. Bring it all back here and have a good discussion. We’ll all appreciate it, and you, more.
Davebo
Yep, it’s crystal clear.
Lines
Tweety is not a Democrat. Read Media Matters. No one with that many lies that favor Republicans will ever be accepted as a Democrat.
scs
Well I think that goes without saying. Real debate as compared to vicious smears are always more conducive to having a productive exchange. I hate to say it, but I was always open, and do not smear people unless they smear me first. Unfortunately, many people on here get more joy from the sport of smearing than are actually interested in exchanging ideas. Other times, I toss out what I think is a casual comment, or maybe don’t explain myself as well as I could, and cause a ruckus on here. I will examine these issues to achieve personal growth. And perhaps Lines, now is a good time to examine your own prejudices as well, so that you too can experience personal growth. Maybe soon we will all be singing Kum Ba Yah together.
Brian
That is the silliest thing written on this entire thread.
I am not a partisan hack because I differ with you. I did not say that Howard Dean should shut up. And I do not believe he is getting his message out.
Is that the best you can do with my comments? If so, you’d do us a service by keeping your comments to yourself.
The Other Steve
Compared to Bush/Cheney… “If you vote for John Kerry… *YOU’RE ALL GONNA DIE!*”?
Yeah, you’re right… positive uplifting message.
Or maybe “If you vote for John Kerry… *YOUR CHILDREN WILL BE CONVERTED TO HOMOSEXUALITY!*”
Yeah, you’re right. You sure knew where they stood on the issues.
It’s suggestions such as yours which have crippled the party. Trust me, I used to believe the same bullshit.
The Other Steve
Matthews is a Republican.
The Other Steve
As I said, for no other reason than you didn’t want to hurt people’s feelings.
Look. Intelligent Design is *WRONGHEADED*, and the people who promote it are *NOT HONEST*. To claim we should just all play along with stupid people so we don’t hurt their feelings is just about the most assinine stupid political insight I’ve ever seen since Brian’s posts.
On one hand you complain that you don’t know what dems stand for, then on the other hand you complain that they stand for too much. Maybe you ought to sit back and think about that a bit, and then come up with a coherent argument.
I believe that what works is to offer answers with conviction. That’s what people want to hear. But that’s very very different from saying “Though shalt not criticize.” Criticism begets answers. See my point? It’s a bit more complicated than the bullshit conventional wisdom argument you make.
Stormy70
Good one! He’s the biggest Dem in the bunch. He was a speechwriter for Carter, wasn’t he? Worked for Tip O’Neil, too .
I see the Dems made Alito’s wife leave in tears. Way to go, Dem Senators! You must be so proud. That will certainly win you some political points from the general population who want Alito confirmed by a healthy margin. Puffed up buffoons.
The Other Steve
Brain, you’re not a partisan hack because you differ with me.
You’re a partisan hack because you offer nothing constructive in the form of argument. It’s *ALL* standard talking points from the Republican party.
It’s like you can’t think for yourself, and many of your comments just come off as written by a drug-adled lunatic. That’s why I think you are DougJ.
DougJ’s stick wasn’t invented, he was repeating people like yourself.
The Other Steve
He voted for Bush. Said so on his own TV show.
The Other Steve
The majority of the general population isn’t even paying attention.
Speaking of buffoonery.
Otto Man
Hitting the sauce a little early, Stormy? This poll has support for Alito’s confirmation at 35%.
Of course, it comes from the notoriously liberal Fox News, so you should probably pay it no mind.
jg
I voted for Kerry. I’m not a democrat.
Stormy70
He’s still a Dem and he most definitely did not vote for Bush in 2004. He did in 2000, because he didn’t like Gore’s campaign. He’s in raving Moonbat land now. Good riddance.
The Dems really stepped in it in these hearings today, the Republican base just got angry again. I will be sending money to Cornyn now, my anger at the Senate Republicans just got washed away by Kennedy, et al. Douchebag losers! Disgraceful and disgusting behavior. Kennedy, who has belonged to Whites Only country clubs and leaves a young woman to die, can just shut the eff up already. Fat turdburglar. I am pissed off. Hypocritical bastard.
Stormy70
Here’s the Washington Post poll.
Are you really coming here to post a poll from December 13-14?
I am sure it trumps this current poll.
What a joke! And with your browbeating of scs and everything today, it just puts you into perspective for me.
The Disenfranchised Voter
You lying sack of shit. LIAR!
It was A Republican Senator who caused her to cry you vile, lying, disgusting bitch.
FUCK YOU.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Stormy, your dishonesty truly fucking digusts me.
You know, instead of thumping that Bible, why don’t you actually read it.
You are scum.
The Disenfranchised Voter
*disgusts
Otto Man
It was the first one I found. The WaPo poll shows that 53% support his confirmation — which is only a “healthy margin” for people who also think getting 51% of the vote in an election is a “landslide.”
It also shows that even more people think Alito would uphold Roe if confirmed. Seems like chipping away at that assumption, as the Senate Dems are trying, would also lower his support.
I’m sorry, but what the fuck are you talking about? I’ve been snarky to comments by Pat and Brian, but I haven’t responded to a thing scs has said. Is my silence towards scs what you’d call “browbeating”?
Isn’t there a TV rerun or a half-drunk bottle of scotch that needs your attention?
rilkefan
More important than whether Matthews is a D or R is the fact that he’s an idiot.
TDV: chill, please. “Bitch” and all-caps is a bit much.
Stormy70
You kiss your mother with that mouth? Unhinged, indeed. The Dems went too far here.
It was a Republican Senator apologizing to her for the way her husband was being treated by the Dems. She was overwhelmed and left the chambers. After listening to gasbag hypocritical Senators impune her husband’s character, it must have been the final straw when Lindsey Graham apologized for their outrageous behavior.
You can try to spin this any way you like, but this leaves the Dems looking like bullies.
Cnn’s Jeff Greenfield
“The temptation for some of these witnesses must be enormous, particularly if it’s a more hostile situation, to just lean over the table and just let some of the senators know what you’re really thinking about their intellectual capacity, their hypocrisy. If they attack him for, I don’t know, being the member of a club, to say “Well really? Where’d you spend your time? How many restrictive clubs have you golfed at?” They can’t do that. It’s not part of the ethic, um… I have a lot of sympathy for these people no matter where they come from on the ideological scale.”
Pathetic display by the Dems today. Pathetic.
Stormy70
What bible? Do you read the pop culture threads? Do you see my taste in movies? A little unhinged here.
Stormy70
This is what I was referring to above.
Well, Lost is finally back tonight and I still haven’t watched the premier of the Sheild, so I will be leaving soon. Plus, I am only going to be drinking Leffe tonight. Best thing out of Belgium besides chocolate.
Later.
The Disenfranchised Voter
The only person spinning–no that is too lenient–LYING is you.
Stormy, I don’t believe in hell, but I hope there is one because I want your ass to rot in it.
You are are so vile. You are a sorry excuse for a human being. I hope your life is nothing but hardships and heartbreaks from here on out.
You are an absolutely DISGRACE to humanity.
GO FUCK YOURSELF.
The Disenfranchised Voter
*absolute
Steve
Hey, chill out. So she claimed on a blog that a Democrat made Alito’s wife cry when it was actually Lindsay Graham. It’s not the end of the world, you know, when someone makes a false statement in blog comments, and I don’t recall Dante assigning such people to any particular circle of hell.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Fuck off Steve, she knowingly lied to suit her agenda.
Stormy70
Are you seriously trying to say that the Democrats slamming her husband all day did not make her cry? Are you that dense? The dam broke when Lindsey showed her some sympathy and he was almost tearing up himself. NBC and CBS lead with this tonight and portrayed the Dems in a bad light. I am not lying.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Am I that Dense?
Apparently John is that dense too then Stormy.
John’s very own words:
That’s you, punk.
Pooh
Stormy was against the MSM before she was for it.
Steve
Telling me to fuck off is just more evidence that you need to cool down, dude.
The fact that a Supreme Court nomination is at stake, with all that implies for the future of our country, and the networks choose to lead off with the “crying” episode demonstrates just how unserious the media has become.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I do need to calm down. I know that.
But you’re not helping.
I don’t need to listen to you be an apologist for her when she was OBVIOUSLY lying.
Steve
Maybe she was. I disagree with Stormy on virtually everything and I am hardly an apologist for her. But you can call her out without, you know, foaming at the mouth and such. That’s the real point.
Otto Man
Yeah, that comment didn’t come from me. Feel free to admit your mistake or apologize any time you’d like.
Krista
Whether or not she cried because someone showed her sympathy and the dam broke (possible — I’ve been there), or maybe she’s just an easy crier and this whole hearing has stressed her out — it’s irrelevant. If this guy is a bad choice for a Supreme Court Justice, then it would be horrible for everybody to look back and say, “Yeah, we confirmed him ’cause when we called him to task, it made his wife cry.”
I’m not unsympathetic, but if you’re a public figure, or the spouse of a public figure, you’ve got to develop a thick skin, ’cause you’re going to be witness to some shitslinging. Some of it will be deserved, some of it not. But it’s gonna happen.
Steve
I sympathize with his wife. I can’t help but think, what if that were my wife, or better yet, what if my wife were the nominee and that was me!
But still, there’s a reason why I don’t bring my wife to a job interview. Putting all the speechifying aside, this is still an important moment which will affect any number of critical issues in this country. It’s not supposed to be some kind of coronation or awards ceremony where everyone says nice things about the nominee and then we all go home.
scs
I didn’t see that scene. Did Graham say anything insulting to her husband (Alito) during his comments to make her cry? I will have to hear the transcript to hear who is lying.
Sojourner
Sorry but the process stopped being democratic when Hatch decided the Repubs didn’t need to follow the rules of the Judiciary committee.
Another one of their ethical lapses.
Sojourner
Torturing the innocent is okay. Raping women and children is cool. BUT DON’T MAKE MRS. ALITO CRY!!!!
BWAAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH!!!
I didn’t think it possible but Stormy has outdone herself!
Thanks for making my day. I’ll be laughing for the rest of the evening.
LOL!!!!
Sojourner
ROFLMAO. There is something truly twisted about Stormy. Ya gotta love it.
Krista
I do love the use of the word “turdburglar”. One of my boyfriend’s favourite epithets, actually.
Steve S
BOO HOO!
Sniff!
Stormy made me cry.
Steve S
From Stormy’s poll which made me ball like a little baby… This is interesting:
That’s remarkable.
I don’t know if it’s wishful thinking on the part of these people, for clearly most Republicans believe he’s going to overturn Roe… but it certainly does go back to my contention to the Democrats that they should stop worrying about Roe.
If Alito overturns Roe, the Republicans will be turned out of office quicker than you can whistle innagoddadivida. Less than 20% of America supports making abortion illegal.
The Disenfranchised Voter
He asked Alito is he was a closet bigot. That is when she broke down in tears.
In Graham’s wacked out world, he thinks the Dems were accusing him of being a bigot. Unfortunately, what Graham doesn’t understand is that you don’t have to be a bigot to have prejudices. The Dems were pointing out that Alito’s past and his record as a judge shows that he has a high bar set when it comes to determining whether a case constitutes discrimination or not.
The Disenfranchised Voter
*is=if
BIRDZILLA
Remember chapaquedic and impeach ted kennedy