Novak falsely claimed "no evidence" that Concerned Alumni of Princeton was "against women"
SUMMARY: Robert D. Novak falsely stated that there was "no evidence" the group Concerned Alumni of Princeton, of which Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. was a member, was against women.
While discussing the Senate confirmation hearing of Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor Robert D. Novak falsely claimed that there was "no evidence" that members of the now-defunct group Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) "were against women." As Novak explained it, the group, whose members issued statements decrying the admission of women to Princeton University, was "just trying to get Princeton off the left-wing bias." But CAP publications and statements by prominent members strongly suggest the group had a history of opposing the recruitment and admission of women to Princeton.
Alito's membership in CAP -- which he noted on his 1985 job application for the position of deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration -- has been raised at the hearing, where several senators have questioned Alito on his affiliation with the organization. Alito earned a bachelor's degree from Princeton in 1972, graduating with the university's last all-male class. Novak's comments came during the January 9 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes.
Founded in the same year that Alito graduated -- three years after Princeton began admitting women to the university -- CAP was criticized in its early years by current Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) who, according to a November 27, 2005, New York Times article, sat on a Princeton alumni panel in 1975 that condemned "the distorted, narrow and hostile view of the university" advanced by the members of CAP.
Marsha Levy-Warren, graduate of the first coeducational class (1973) and former vice president of the student government, told The Daily Princetonian that CAP was "a far-right organization funded by conservative alumni committed to turning back the clock on coeducation at the University," according to a November 18, 2005, article in the campus newspaper. The Princetonian reported that CAP, during its formation, was co-chaired by Asa Bushnell and Shelby Cullom Davis, both outspoken opponents of coeducation at the university. The campus newspaper described Davis as "a strong traditionalist, firmly opposed to the many of the new directions Princeton was taking, including coeducation."
CAP published a magazine, Prospect, edited by Alito classmate T. Harding Jones, who, according to the Princetonian, wrote in the February 1973 issue that the increasing number of women in the Princeton student body showed that "[t]he makeup of the Princeton student body has changed drastically for the worse." On March 3, 1974, according to People for the American Way, Jones told The New York Times that "[c]o-education has ruined the mystique and the camaraderies that used to exist. Princeton has now given into the fad of the moment, and I think it's going to prove to be a very unfortunate thing."
According to the Princetonian, Davis wrote in Prospect:
"May I recall, and with some nostalgia, my father's 50th reunion, a body of men, relatively homogenous in interests and backgrounds, who had known and liked each other over the years during which they had contributed much in spirit and substance to the greatness of Princeton ... I cannot envisage a similar happening in the future," Davis added, "with an undergraduate student population of approximately 40% women and minorities, such as the Administration has proposed."
Additionally, according to The Nation, "[T]he executive committee of CAP published a statement in December 1973 that affirmed unequivocally, 'Concerned Alumni of Princeton opposes adoption of a sex-blind admission policy.' " And according to a November 26, 2005, New York Times article by staff writer David Kirkpatrick, in the 1980s CAP also opposed the integration of three all-male "eating clubs where many upper class Princeton students took their meals."
Also, according to People for the American Way, "A 1973 CAP fundraising letter claimed that 'a student population of approximately 40 percent women and minorities will largely vitiate the alumni body of the future.'"
As the November 26, 2005, New York Times article noted:
In 1975, an alumni panel that included Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the current Republican leader and a 1974 Princeton graduate, concluded that Concerned Alumni had "presented a distorted, narrow and hostile view of the university that cannot help but have misinformed and even alarmed many alumni" and "undoubtedly generated adverse national publicity."
The group disbanded in 1987. Alito listed his membership in the group on the "Personal Qualifications Statements" part of his 1985 application for the position of deputy assistant attorney general with the Reagan administration.
From the January 9 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
ALAN COLMES (co-host): But, do they have a point about civil rights? For example, it turns out he was once a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton. The story is that that group tried to challenge the admission of women and minorities. Not friendly to the disabled. Bill Bradley spoke out against this group, as did Bill Frist. Will issues like that cause him big trouble?
NOVAK: I think that could. They've done some statistical things on how many times he didn't vote for so-called black civil rights proposals in the court. The CAP, the Concerned -- the Princeton alumni group, they're just trying to get Princeton off the left-wing bias. And there's no signs at all, no evidence that they were against women. But that -- I think anything that they can find -- you see, the way it works is they try to find the things -- they decide in the first place that they're attacking him, they're against him, and then they try to find matters to try to substantiate that assault.
Alito's comment during his testimony that he "had no recollection" of even being a member of CAP is very telling. Novak and others know well what sort of organization this is...and are trying hard to make this a left-wing conspiracy of nit-picking. Please.
No Facts is at it again. I can't believe fox hired this guy. Don't they want their ratings to go back UP?
Hey, Fox is the only network that Novak will not walk out on.
The prince of darkness strikes again. They don't call him Bob "No-Facts" for nothing. He should fit right in at Faux - they have never allowed the facts to influence their reporting...er, propaganda.
This is so much ado about nothing - it was over 30 years ago, a much different time period and Alito was in college, for crying out loud. Even if this organization was trying to get Princeton back to the way it was with fewer women, and even that's arguable, so what?
You can't condemn a man now for being a member of an organization during his college years, over 30 years ago.
For the Democrats to even bring this up shows how ridiculous these hearings are becoming......and it shows how little they have to really be seriously troubled about over this nominee.
Then he should have said just that during his testimony. He was proud of it...listed it on CVs in the past. Why such a lapse of memory if it was just some dumb kid prank? Big red flag.
Read what he said - he put it on a job application back in 1985 when it was far more fresh in his memory.....but considering he held no position in the organization he may have easily forgotten about it.........why is that so hard for some of you to grasp. The fact is, it isn't.......you are just grasping at straws because you don't like him because he's conservative.
At least be honest, and admit that much.
I don't buy it. So, when he's trying to get a job in the Reagan administration it's okay to be a member. Now? Not so much.
Considering the amount of lies and corruption that has gone down at the hands of this administration, the onus is not upon me or any other citizen in this country to take anything on faith.
I am glad that conservatives are so much above the fray, that they don't engage in character assasination when it comes to someone's past, especially when it happened 30 years ago.
Oh wait a minute... What was that "swiftboat" thing all about again. Thank goodness that was only during a Presidential campaign and not a one-in-nine position in the SCOTUS.
"You can't condemn a man now for being a member of an organization during his college years, over 30 years ago."
So, if a Democratic nominee is found to have been a member of the "Young Communist League" or some such 30 years previously, you would make this argument? I would say it at least bears some explanation, don't you?
I would put it in the context of their life since and if it was an isolated incident of one's youth, it should not disqualify - even a Democrat.
So what exactly is inconsistent between this organization and the rest of his life? Isn't it consistent with right-wing ideology? And wouldn't you say that if he mentioned it in 1985 on a job application that he wasn't exactly ashamed of that portion of his life?
To begin with, equating a school club from Princeton with Communism is a ridiculous analogy - but I gave you that to illustrate you can't determine someone's qualifications for anything from a club they belonged to over 30 years ago when they were barely an adult.....Surely you can see that.
As for his life since, I have seen nothing in his rulings as a judge or his answers in this hearing to indicate he is against equality for everyone.
I would accept that you can take it as an isolated incident IF there's a plausible explanation. For example, if he were to say "I quit when I learned more about the nature of the group", fine. To say he doesn't remember being part of it is simply absurd and it's not unreasonable to judge that to be a lie. Besides, you failed to answer the most important question;if he mentioned it on a job application, doesn't that show that he wasn't embarrassed or ashamed of it, and therefore can't really be considered as some sort of youthful mistake? If he considered it to be a positive factor in his thirties, then you can't very well argue that his philosophy had radically changed.
The communist reference was perfectly apt. I couldn't imagine someone belonging to such a group, mentioning it on a job application years later, and then trying to pass it off as something forgettable or as a youthful indiscretion. There is no possibility on this planet that would fly, that's why your blanket statement was so questionable.
You have every right not to give Alito the benefit of the doubt, every thing he says you question as the truth - that is where your ideology trumps your good sense........in any event, it is absolutely not unrealistic to think that someone would put down on a job application just 10+ years after the fact that they belonged to a college club, but 20 years after that it may have slipped his mind? There is no lie here, but you apparently want there to be one to conform to your dislike of this nominee and his conservative principles.
At least be honest about that.
Doesn't it show that it wasn't just a "youthful mistake" if he posts it on his job application in his thirties?
As for ideology trumping good sense, that's exactly the concern about Alito! As often as you trot out the "well-qualified" argument, you miss the entire point. I would encourage you to read this;
[link to glenngreenwald.blogspot.com]
I never said it was "youthful mistake" - I said it occurred in his youth, when he was 21, an organization he had no major role in anyway, that is not even as demonic as you maintain.........and so what if he put it on a job application? Why are you so stuck on this? Hmmm? The only thing I can come up with is because you have nothing else........
Did the Republican's vote down Ginsberg because she was a member of the ACLU? An organization that many think is radical and very left wing.....of course not.
What you said is that you can't determine qualifications based on such a thing. The point is, you can determine philosophy and mindset based on it. And you can't very well claim that it's not applicable to his later life when he implicitly claimed so himself by listing it as one of his credits.
Face it, you are the one who won't or can't leave this alone because, in a pathetic sort of way, you have nothing else.......I have answered the question over and over, but you don't like the answer so you say I won't answer it - a ploy used here all the time.
I bit a few times though - when someone is so steeped in their partisanship and so hates anything connected with this current administration, they veer the argument off in some silly direction - a ploy used here all the time.
and I would not lie about it. We have only two choices: either he outright lied (more likely), or he is a total idiot (I don't think he could have gotten this far by being so forgetful*). In either case, this does not earn him any points. Also, add to the idiocy of the lie/brain-fart that he joined an organization that he so proudly advertised to get a position.
* sorry, I forgot about Bush Jr.
What is glaringly obvious is that nothing will satifsy you at all......if he puts it on his application in 1985, then doesn't years later - well, He's lying. If he does put it on every application you would then accuse him of embracing the organization.........when perhaps, just perhaps, he decided he no longer wanted to be affiliated with it so he left it off.........
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
One more time, with clarity. You say:
"What is glaringly obvious is that nothing will satifsy you at all......if he puts it on his application in 1985, then doesn't years later - well, He's lying."
I have not read a post that said he was lying because he no longer includes it on a resume. We say he is lying because he now claims to have never heard of the organization. Have you not been paying attention to the argument?
------- clip ---------- from [link to catchingflies.typepad.com] Samuel Alito ... said Wednesday that he has "no recollection" of being a member of Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP), a group that made headlines in recent weeks after critics said it has advocated far-right, anti-coeducational and anti-affirmative action views. [This isn't something critics allege. It's simply true, which is why even former members, as we'll see in a minute, are doing backflips to try to distance Alito from a group they were all part of]
Alito's statement was made in a document released Wednesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will hold confirmation hearings on his nomination in January. It comes following scrutiny of comments he made two decades ago in an application for a high-level job in President Reagan's Justice Department.
Alito wrote at the time that he was "a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton University, a conservative alumni group." The revelation drew sharp criticism from some observers, who see Alito's past membership in the group as evidence of an extreme conservative perspective.
Though Alito conceded in the judiciary committee statement that the "document I recently reviewed reflects that I was a member of the group in the 1980s," he said: "Apart from that document, I have no recollection of being a member, of attending meetings, or otherwise participating in the activities of the group. The group has no current officers from whom more information may be obtained."
No, you never answered the question, you have just dismissed it. What's funny is that you are so often accusing people of making arguments based purely on partisanship, but continuously you are the one who has their arguments demolished and fails to put a dent in the opposition. Yet, we're the ones who are saying what we do just because we're stubborn or something. You can't keep up in a debate, but everyone else is being disingenuous with their arguments, somehow.
It seems to me that you cling to discredited and inexplicable theories continuously, pass off unbased assertions as fact, ignore points and questions while claiming that you addressed them, and display gaping canyon-sized holes of logic and yet no matter how many times you are called out and corrected, you never change your views or learn when to keep quiet. The day you win an argument and that person continues to peddle their discredited point, maybe then you will have an argument that someone else is acting in a partisan manner. Until then, you are the one who continues to show that you are not interested in truth or facts, but are just stubbornly pushing your partisan view.
"every thing he says you question as the truth - that is where your ideology trumps your good sense"
No, that is where his reason kicks in and trumps any blind faith.
If you were current on the news you would know that particular application of 30 years past has been very much in the news as of late before the hearings. It is logical that he went over every word of that application priot to his hearings. For him now to say he does not remember is a sham.
First off, your side is associated with communists.
Second, Hood College has been all-female for decades. This year they are going to admit males for the first time.
Are saying all those female alums who are against admitted males are bigots??
How about opening up Smith, Wellesley and the rest of the all-female colleges to full coeducational institutions. And while we are at let's make sure we don't have any more predominately black institutions. They must all be bigots.
First off, I specified "Democratic nominee". I encourage you to read before posting in the future. Second off, you can't possibly be serious in trying to equate an effort to keep women and minorities from entering an Ivy-league school with schools that exclusively cater to historically disadvantaged groups. This country is still predominantly run by white men, so to say that efforts to create more avenues for those who have been discriminated against is somehow bigotry itself is just absurd.
The right of association is extremely important and calling someone a bigot for wanting to join an all-male organization is ridiculous. I thought you lefties fought for peoples rights. Now you want to practice reverse apartheid.
Your characterization that Alito was just trying to join an all-male organization is what's ridiculous. And do you really not see the difference when you're talking about institutions that were designed to combat the effects of racism and sexism as opposed to trying to maintain a white male atmosphere at a prestigious university? I'm not disadvantaged or oppressed personally or by group, and therefore have no right to complain about such universities. There is no reason that Princeton should avoid diversity, though, unless you want to argue that it was designed for white men. Is that what you want to do?
These places were created because of discrimination against them, that does not justify more of it anywhere.
What do you mean you have not been oppressed by any group so you have no right to complain?
Every group is oppressed in some fashion. Do you not think there are whites oppressed by affirmative action? Do you feel you can't give an opinion on the war in Iraq since you are not fighting in it?
So what if Alito was a member of an all-male club. So was Kennedy. Guess what? Alot of people are not thrilled when taking a single sex school and allowing others in . Wellesley didn't like the change and I am sure many members in Princeton did not want to break the tradition. I wouldn't want to eliminate any Wellesley grads or Princeton grads from being on the SCOTUS for wanting to keep their schools single sex.
"Alot of people are not thrilled when taking a single sex school and allowing others in. " +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I am sure there are a lot of people not thrilled about having Blacks live in their neighborhoods or having a female boss. Your support of Alito's confirmation strengthens my fear of him. Progressives have always worked for an expansion of rights and facilitation access to opportunity for those that had long been denied it in the past. Recent affirmitive action policies for women and minorities were instituted to counteract the centuries old AFFIRMITIVE ACTION POLICIES that had exsisted for the sole benefit for white males. Those policies help build a legacy of power for that group. Why am I talking to you, it's like talking to a brick wall. Oppressed indeed!
You're doing it again;affirmative action, which is a remedy for racism, is racism itself. Give me a break, please. By that logic, any efforts to even the playing field are unfair to white people, and therefore everybody should just pretend there is no problem, hoping that someday it will correct itself on its own, somehow. Brilliant.
And stop pretending that all this is about is Alito being part of an "all-male club". You are seriously distorting the issue, showing either a lack of honesty or awareness. CAP was an advocate against minorities as well, which makes a big difference.
My daughter graduated from a public "all girls" college prepatory high school. It's an honors school and you have to meet a certain academic criteria to be accepted at the school. Is isn't open to the general school population. When she graduated 98% of the girls went on to institutions of higher learning. It's the oldest "all girls" public high school in the country, and it has a very prestigious alumni. Many have gone on to assume leadership roles on the local and national level. You'll note I have "all girls" in quotes because technically the school has been open for male enrollment for years, but none have ever applied to attend. Why? I would guess that they see no prestige in anything that has a reputation as being "all female".
Not a good argument to say that historically black or female colleges are bigoted. These institutions were founded precisely because these minorities were not allowed admission to mainstream colleges/universities because of bigoted/biased admissions policies. You therefore cannot accuse them of being bigoted when they've found a positive solution to your bigotry that does not directly involve you. By the way, I don't think that there are any historically black colleges today that exclude whites, but I may be wrong.
Certainly not! My daughter went to undergraduate school at a historically Black University. Her reasons for attending the school weren’t exactly driven by a desire to support the school, it was financial. Now that there is access to traditional White Universities and Ivy leagues schools, African Americans that perform well academically and do well on their SAT choose to attend those schools. Her undergrad school in an effort to improve the average SAT scores and its academic reputation offers FANTASTIC academic scholarships to recruit high performers to attend the school. They paid for her tuition, room & board, and books for four years. There were a Whites and many non-AA students that took advantage of that program as my daughter did. She later went to a highly ranked Pharmacy school. It was a good arrangement.
LOL. I bet no GOP Senator would mention that a Democrat nominee to the Suprme Court would mention that a nominee was a member of "Yound communist league" 30 years ago. Give me a break.
Very lame response from the Judge. I refuse to believe he can't recall the time that most Ivy league school graduates would call the best time of their life. This either represents an early form of a degenerative central nervous system disorder (which should disqualify him from any bench) or he is a liar ( and should therefore not sit on the nation's highest court). I suspect that the truth is that he was a member because he believed in such a cause. I was initially for him, because I am against abortion. Now, I am very concerned, and cannot support him, as there should be no pretense on the Supreme Court.
...the convenient memory lapse that's troubling. Especially because it seems to be his answer for too many of the questions Dems raise. All I've seen from his answers so far is he conveniently forgets, has no problem telling his authority figures what they want to hear and doing as he is told. Those are not good characteristics for a SCOTUS judge.
You mean to tell me if a person was part of a Nazi hate group and wanted to become a political leader in a society that does not practice raceism he cant be called on that if it was 30 years ago......thats rediculous. with no foundation.
He cant recall being part of an organization yet he is a judge that his rulings effects the very lives of people yet he cant recall his own life experiences. please.
"May I recall, and with some nostalgia, my father's 50th reunion, a body of men, relatively homogenous in interests and backgrounds, who had known and liked each other over the years during which they had contributed much in spirit and substance to the greatness of Princeton ... I cannot envisage a similar happening in the future," Davis added, "with an undergraduate student population of approximately 40% women and minorities, such as the Administration has proposed." +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gee what a comforting thought. Alito either concurred with the sentiment of the organization he belonged to and maybe he's now a reformed bigot and is ashamed to admit it. On the other hand maybe he never was a bigot and he was simply networking. He wanted people to believe he was a bigot because he knew that bigots had assumed power in the 80's and they controlled access to the prestigious jobs he wanted.
that is much more relevant in this thread:
If Alito can't remember NOW about being in CAP in the 70s, then why WAS HE ABLE TO remember being in it in 1985? If it is accurate and he does remember, why not admit it if it is nothing to be ashamed of? If having been a member is inaccurate, then why should we trust someone that lies on a resume? Also if he was not actively involved, why put it on a resume? It's like placing a job that you never went to on a resume.
"I have no specific recollection of that organization," Alito told the panel. The Princeton graduate said he was not actively involved in the conservative organization. According to AP.
If Alito can't remember NOW about being in CAP in the 70s, then why WAS HE ABLE TO remember being in it in 1985? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I'm 47 years old and I can remember every club I belonged to in elementary school, high school and college. It's sad that Alito correctly assumed that membership in this bigoted organization would impress the people he needed to facilitate advancement of his career. The fact that he understood membership in this organization was a feather in his cap only shows the nature of politicos in charge at the time; and unfortunately they are in charge again. These guys too are still trying to undo the "damage" they believed caused by proactive diversity promotion. All I can say is Alito will be confirmed and I don't think he will disappoint his supporters. I’ve resigned myself to the fact that there may be seismic changes in the society I’ve known in my adult life. I came to age under and benefited from the Democratic sponsored initiatives.
I am 51 and haven't forgotten about any of the clubs I was in in any level of schooling either. It's hard to understand how somebody could claim not only to have forgotten, but to have made reference to it again in their thirties and still claim to have forgotten it now.
You n0ted in a previous post that it appears that he cynically mentioned the club affiliation to people who shared its exclusionary sentiments and would be impressed by it. I agree. Now he claims to have forgotten it...it certainly appears that this could be another cynical ploy to impress a group that would not endorse those exclusionary sentiments. He also has a history of promising to recuse himself from cases involving parties with whom he had a financial connection (again, in order to get a job) but failed to do so in some cases that came before his court. It appears that he is accustomed to saying whatever it takes to get a job.
I had not actually read Alito's statement on his 1985 application, but now that I have I am even more perplexed as to how he can distance himself from this organization. The organization was not disbanded until 1987, and Alito's statement in 1985 said "I am...a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton University, a conservative alumni group." Sounds to me like he was a member of the group for at least 10 years. Does anybody here think they would forget an organization they were a member of for 10 years?
This CAP connection is big, even though the demonized Ted Kennedy pursues it. How is that Alito can't remember? He remembers chapter and verse of just about everything he ever did. We are talking about 21 years ago, not 30 when Alito bragged about this to the Reagan admi nidstration. He appears to have one set of answers for a bipartisan Senate committee and another set for the Reagan White House. And what is this about his wife crying? Me thinks she doth protest too much.
All this talk about some club Alito belonged to in college and whether he recollects now or not is so obviously transparent it is laughable. Is this all the Democrats can hang their hats on???
The fact remains that many of you here could care less about this club, and his forgetting about is meaningless - but you disingenuously prop it up as a reason to vote against him.........when in reality, the real reason is because he is a conservative........and many of you hate that so much you will grab on to anything to derail his confirmation.
Sadly, it will not work - he will and should be confirmed.
"The fact remains that many of you here could care less about this club, and his forgetting about is meaningless - but you disingenuously prop it up as a reason to vote against him.."
You have shown exactly why we are concerned. We care deeply against what this club stood for, and it is odd how those who once believed in it enough have conveniently forgotten all about it. You seem to assume that since you see nothing wrong with the club, and you see nothing wrong with an intelligent man who once boasted about his membership completely forgetting the existing of said club -- then -- it is cannot be a reason for others to question his ability to judge.
Weird. Were you on your HS debate team (and do you remember being in such an organization?)
[Long time lurker, finally joined to make a comment]
All this talk about some club Alito belonged to in college...
I know you'll say this is nitpicking and blah blah, but this was NOT a club he belonged to in college. It was founded AFTER he graduated, was a group of alumni, and he said "I am a member" a decade later. This has been said multiple times, and the fact that you're still trying to pass it off as collegiate indiscretion shows that you're not actually reading.
I'm against Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court because he's a conservative!!!
Why? Because I think conservatives exercise bad judgement when interpreting laws.
How do I know Alito is a conservative? Because he has proudly claimed membership in an organization that was dedicated to opposing the racial and sexual integration of the all-male, predominantly white institution of which Alito was an alumnus.
Is that clear enough for you? Do you get it now?
By the way, do you even think about your posts anymore, or do your fingers type them from muscle memory?
-mid
"The fact remains that many of you here could care less about this club, and his forgetting about is meaningless"
-----
This sudden lack of memory could be a sign of a degerative mental disease, like Alzheimers. I remember every club I was a member of, and I'm 54. I don't want someone on the Supreme Court with such a convenient ability to "forget" things. I believe he's lying. If he isn't, he needs to have a complete physical to find out what is causing the lapses in his memory. It could be serious.
"degenerative," of course.
"but you disingenuously prop it up as a reason to vote against him"
It's disingenuous to question someone's crediblity when they're obviously lying? Hmmmm...
I've written more than once that you are one of the more thoughtful and reasonable conservative voices on this board, which makes it all the more painful to see you degenerate like this.
You've had your head handed to you on a platter by Brabantonio and others, but are so blinded by your own traditions and by your hatred of those who might oppose Alito's nomination to our country's highest court that you are unable to see it for yourself. You are putting forth weak and illegitimate arguments, devolving into bizarre flights of fancy and frankly nasty commentary, and are wrapping it up in a "he's going to be nominated anyway, so I win" mentality.
Please stop embarrassing yourself. I'd suggest taking some time off to recuperate. We'd hate to see you become another knee-jerk right-wing of toadie. All we'd have left is Jeter.
This was an advocacy organization, not a club. Is the KKK a club? Anyway the point is, he claimed to be a proud member of CAP in order to get a job with an ultra-conservative administration, which led him on a carreer path to this nomination, but now he can't seem to remember ever being a member of this "club". The question is, was he lying then, or is he lying now? Either way, he is a liar, and seems willing to say whatever need to be said to get the job he wants. The senate dems are crazy if they don't filibuster this nomination. To hell with the screaming fit that will come from the right. They'll say whatever outrageous things thay want to say anyhow and this is WAY too important to let it go.
"he claimed to be a proud member of CAP in order to get a job with an ultra-conservative administration"
That's the other "troubling" aspect to this that clearly points out that he is LYING. How can he not recall being a member of this group, but he can remember exactly WHY he put it on that resume 30 years ago? What sense does that make. He has no credibility and should NOT be a judge in the highest court of this land.
Is it so radical to want your favoured club (university or whatever) to stay the way it was when you joined it? Maybe CAP was just trying to get this reversed, perhaps passionately so, and said some things we might all be willing to say if we're angry about a beloved tradition being ended. Perhaps when Novak said there was no evidence they were against women, he meant that they were not against women in general, just against the school becoming co-ed.
The word tradition is another word often appropriated by the extreme right and if you decode it in the context in which it's used it clearly means that want the right to maintain bigoted practices."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Now what other meaning can a reasonable person conclude from the following statement?
According to the Princetonian, Davis wrote in Prospect:
"May I recall, and with some nostalgia, my father's 50th reunion, a body of men, relatively homogenous in interests and backgrounds, who had known and liked each other over the years during which they had contributed much in spirit and substance to the greatness of Princeton ... I cannot envisage a similar happening in the future," Davis added, "with an undergraduate student population of approximately 40% women and minorities, such as the Administration has proposed."
This is the statement of a bigot, he couldn't imagine that maybe there would be a minority or a women that could possible share his interests. Some bigots are well educated and they are far more dangerous than the toothless KKK member.
"he meant that they were not against women in general, just against the school becoming co-ed."
Ohhhhh, well that would make it all better. Get real. Because they're scared of progress, it's excusable for them to rail against women have equal rights (even if it is only to this specific aspect of those rights)?
No, not better, but that is a different issue. One issue is, should the school change the way it operates. The other issue is are they "against women". For example, if I belonged to a club that was all men, and I liked this club, and I had become accustomed to it being all men, and it turned out that things were going to change and there really wasn't much I could do about it except rail against it, would I be against women, or just against women joining my club? I'm not championing the CAP personally, just pointing out that, indeed, there isn't evidence that Alito is "against women" or belonged to a club that was "against women", only to a club that didn't want a coed school.
They didn't want minorities around either. It's amazing how so many people seem to convenientely overlook that part!
Why is there this desire to belong to clubs that are made up of only white men? It's a bigoted attitude and desire. I feel no need to be in a club that's all white men (even though I am one). If I did belong to one, I'd think it was rather odd when I realised it was all white men. I'd have to realise it because I wouldn't join specifically for that. Was so terribly important that we keep this seperatist attitude? The "what about women's only colleges" argument doesn't cut it either. Those are in response to a specific problem. White Men Only clubs are not.
What is important is whether Alito continues to believe in the CAP's values: that the ideal for a university is to be a homogenous group of privileged white men. Whether he still believes this has direct bearing on his fitness to be a justice, because cases involving equality and discrimination in higher education come before the Court fairly regularly.
As a current Mississippian, the CAP reminds me a lot of the older white gentlemen of my state who engage in misty-eyed reminiscing about the Jim Crow days, when n-----s weren't allowed to play football for Ole Miss. If Alito is just the northeastern elitist version of these folks, I think we should know that.
Did he replace someone at FOX ????? And Alitro not remembering PAC ?? Isn't he supposaed to be one of the finest, brightest of this nation ?
brought to my mind something: if you cross out "Princeton" and replace it with "Yale," it sounds like a meeting of the Skull and Bones Society . . .
Does anyone have a link that might point to the actually quotes, in their entirety, from the Prospect? I'd like to know whether the quotes that Kennedy had on his chart were from an editiorial, a story, a letter to the editor, etc. Thanks!