Arguing that Democrats looked "like bullies," Newsweek ignored conservative groups' efforts to capitalize on Alito's wife's tears
SUMMARY: A Newsweek article argued that Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s wife bursting into tears during his nomination hearing has left Democrats "looking like bullies," thanks to "a coalition of liberal interest groups" that "pushed the lawmakers to come on stronger." But the article ignored the campaign launched by conservatives immediately after the incident to blame Democrats for Martha-Ann Alito's tears, which came during Sen. Lindsey Graham's questioning.
In a January 23 article in Newsweek, managing editor Evan Thomas and Washington bureau chief Daniel Klaidman argued that an incident during the Senate hearing for Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. -- when his wife, Mary-Ann Alito, burst into tears -- has left Democrats "looking like bullies," thanks to "a coalition of liberal interest groups" that "pushed the lawmakers to come on stronger." But Thomas and Klaidman's assessment -- that "liberal interest groups" were in part responsible for Democrats "looking like bullies" -- ignored the campaign launched by conservatives immediately after the incident to blame Democrats for Martha-Ann Alito's tears, which came not during Democrats' questioning of Alito but during Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-SC) characterization of the Democrats' questioning. Indeed, the Thomas-Klaidman article might itself be seen as evidence of conservatives' success in tarring Democrats over the incident.
Asserting that Mary-Ann Alito's "tears probably sealed Alito's confirmation," Newsweek asked "How did Democrats wind up looking like bullies?" Thomas and Klaidman wrote:
Part of the answer lies in the behind-the-scenes machinations. The Democratic lawmakers are strongly influenced by a coalition of liberal interest groups, who have been pouring money into ads warning that Alito is a right-wing extremist who will strip away a woman's right to an abortion. When the Democratic senators, for all their blather, seemed too soft on Alito on the first day of questioning, the interest groups pushed the lawmakers to come on stronger.
Thomas and Klaidman's explanation ignores conservatives' own "behind-the-scenes-machinations." Time magazine reported that conservatives immediately "seized on the [crying] incident to complain about Democratic 'bullying,' and said they plan to make the incident a cause célèbre." An article by reporter Mike Allen continued:
"When will the media shame these people for their behavior?" Sean Rushton, executive director of the administration-friendly Committee for Justice, asked in a blast e-mail to journalists. The always-alert Creative Response Concepts, a conservative public relations firm, sent this bulletin: "Former Alito clerk Gary Rubman witnessed Mrs. Alito leaving her husband's confirmation in tears and is available for interviews, along with other former Alito clerks who know her personally and are very upset about this development."
In case that was too much trouble for the journalists, the firm also e-mailed out a statement from the Judicial Confirmation Network calling "for the abuse to stop."
During CNN's January 12 coverage of the hearings, former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie, who has served as an adviser to Alito during his nomination, was quick to capitalize on the strategy, using Alito's wife's emotional display as a way to condemn Democrats:
GILLESPIE: She's fine. Look, Wolf [Blitzer], yesterday got very personal, and innuendo and borderline smear campaign. And I've got to tell you, I've worked with Judge Alito, who is an incredibly honorable, decent, good man, for the past three months in preparation for these hearings. It was hard for me to sit there and listen to what the Democrats are trying to imply. So I can imagine what it must have felt like for his wife. And I think when Senator Graham rightly pushed back and put this on the table, I can understand how she got emotional. But I have to say, I think the Democrats -- it seems like they realize they overreached.
Fidelis, a conservative advocacy group in favor of Alito's confirmation, posted an article from CNSNews.com on its website, which read:
Supporters of Judge Samuel Alito are condemning what they consider unfair attacks on the Supreme Court nominee -- attacks that distressed his wife to the point of tears on Wednesday.
From an article in the January 23 issue of Newsweek:
Her tears probably sealed Alito's confirmation. How did the Democrats wind up looking like bullies? Part of the answer lies in the behind-the-scenes machinations. The Democratic lawmakers are strongly influenced by a coalition of liberal interest groups, who have been pouring money into ads warning that Alito is a right-wing extremist who will strip away a woman's right to an abortion. When the Democratic senators, for all their blather, seemed too soft on Alito on the first day of questioning, the interest groups pushed the lawmakers to come on stronger.
Are we supposed to accept that legitimate questions demanded by Alitos membership in a discrimitory group are supposed to NOT be raised because it MIGHT hurt someones feelings? If the Mrs. Doent like the heat she should have counseled her husband NOT to volunteer for kitchen duty.
Oh please, if I hear another leftist haul out the "heat and the kitchen" reference one more time, I am going to throw up!
It isn't even about Mrs. Alito and her tears, I am sure she is doing fine........the bigger point is that what the Democrats did was unprofessional, uncalled for, over the top, and very transparent. Any reasonable person who watched those hearings, and I don't mean blind partisan left wing nuts, saw it for themselves - a desperate minority group of irritated Senators subtly and very cleverly trying to paint a very nuanced and blurry portrait of Alito as a racist and a bigot........for many of you to say they didn't accuse Alito of that is downright silly........they absolutely, in their very patented and slick methodology, knew exactly the impression they wanted to leave.
Thankfully, nobody, except those aforementioned left wing nuts, took the bait.
For those of us who don't get C-SPAN2, how about some examples of the unprofessional, over-the-top questions these horrible Democrats were asking? Or was the smear so subtle that only blindly partisan right-wing websites and party hacks like Lindsey Graham could detect it?
The entire unseemly agenda the Democrats were hellbent to weave was what was unprofessional and uncalled for........they acted like their questions were thoughtful and important, when in actuality they were a sleazy and stealth attempt to paint Alito as a bigot and a racist......."Why would you belong to such a club?"
Defend this type of thing all day long if you're so inclined, but be prepared when the tables are turned someday and the Republiocan's resort to this same thing......it just lowers the bar and does nothing to further what these hearings should be about - to determine whether a potential SC judge is qualified or not, not agenda driven questions about a club over 30 years ago.
No examples, huh? Not even one? Just more vagueness? (Did you actually say they were "weaving" an "agenda"?) Imagine my surprise.
just maybe if they would have shut up and actually asked a question, it might have helped. At one point, I think it was Biden asked five questions in over 30 minutes. 29 minutes was bloviation at it's finest. They were all when did you stop beating your wife questions. Reading a CAP parody from a magazine trying to make Alito look like a racist was a joke. Questions like "Have you ever hear any nominee say he did not have an open mind?" and dumbass questions like that were common. They looked like jackasses in true democrat fashion.
Not an example of an unprofessional question. In fact in all of you rightwing appolgists snivelling we havent heard a single example of anything over the top which was one accusation nor of accusing bigotry another. You guys arent even in the ballpark of reasonable criticism of the opposition party DOING THEIR JOB.
And this is opposed to the butt kissers the Republicans looked like? Oh Alito how wonderful thou art? Both parties looked like gits.
"They looked like jackasses..."
The biggest jackass I saw was Arlen Specter, who went into an enormous hissy over the Kennedy CAP letter. "You can't tell me what I have or haven't received!" I've honest-to-God never seen a grown man, let alone a senator, behave like such a petulant five-year-old. Not even Stevens, though he has come awfully close. Watch the video here: [link to thinkprogress.org]
As for unprofessional questions from Democrats, we're waiiiiiiiiiting...
Tommy's only got one tune in his music box, and it's flat.
He keeps coming in with his stale commentary about how the Democrats badgered Alito, and when pressed for examples, provides nothing, not a single quote. He routinely finishes up by saying that since Alito's going to be confirmed anyway, the Left's tactics didn't work; i.e., he wins. You can almost hear him going "Nyahh nyahh!" with his thumbs in his ears. His playground charm is evident.
I would be surprised if he's actually watched any of the hearings; my guess is he's simply getting his information from the Right-wing media cesspool.
By the way, Tommy, in case you read this (before flagging it, that is): "If you can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen." Now, do as you promised and go lose your cookies. Preferably all over your keyboard.
Which is rather uncharacteristic of Tommy I thought. I used to hold him (I'm assuming) up there with jeter2 as conservatives I may mostly disagree with, but at least they're reasonable and specific in their debate. It certainly made for much more stimulating conversation and won me over on a few subjects. Well, Tommy sure has fallen away from that. It almost makes me think it's someone spoofing Tommy.
Speaking of clubs...Seems to me Teddy Kennedy has got some "splaining" to do ;-)
He's gonna quit...but wait he doesn't really belong...but yet he pays his $100 dues every year.
Forget Mrs Alito, THIS story could make you cry (or laugh).
Hey wanna go after Alito? Fine...but if THIS ain't the pot calling the kettle black.
======================
Ted K. to quit club that bans women
By Jules Crittenden (Boston Herald)
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - Updated: 11:41 AM EST
U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy — who ripped Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito for ties to a group that discriminates against women — says he’s going to quit a club notorious for discriminating against women “as fast as I can.”
Kennedy was outed by conservatives late last week as a current member of The Owl Club, a social club for Harvard alumni that bans women from membership.
In an interview with WHDH Channel 7’s Andy Hiller that aired last night, Kennedy said, “I joined when I . . . 52 years ago, I was a member of the Owl Club, which was basically a fraternal organization.”
Asked by Hiller whether he is still a member, Kennedy said, “I’m not a member; I continue to pay about $100.”
He then said of being a member in a club that discriminates against women, “I shouldn’t be and I’m going to get out of it as fast as I can.”
The Harvard Crimson reports that, in 1984, the university severed ties with clubs like the Owl, citing a federal law championed by Kennedy.
Meanwhile, Kennedy admitted to Hiller that he himself probably couldn’t pass Judiciary Committee muster.
“Probably not . . . probably not,” Kennedy said.
The committee will vote on Alito’s nomination on Jan. 24, and the full Senate will begin debate the next day. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he looks forward to a “fair up-or-down vote.”
http://news.bostonherald.com/localPolitics/view.bg?articleid=121646
http://news.bostonherald.com/localPolitics/view.bg?articleid=121646
I'm confident Sen. Kennedy will be thoroughly questioned about the Owl Club membership at his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Maybe he should start training his wife to cry on cue.
Oh ok so it only MATTERS if you're a nominee for a position on the Supreme Court?? **Typical HYPOCRISY from the LEFT.**
Thanks for clearing that up Rusty ;-)
Mmmmmm I guess Rusty would also claim it would be OK for Senator Robert Byrd to drill a Supreme Court nominee about their past membership in the KKK....guess Rusty would say it ONLY counts if the nominee was a member. Doesn't matter if Byrd was once a card carrying hooded racist himself...
Yup...got it. Gee I'd cry here myself, BUT I'm laughing too hard.
More on topic, I believe Mrs. Alito's tears were real. Only an insensitive partisan would question THAT...She probably (as discussed in another thread) should NOT have attended the hearings.
I don't think Kennedy should be in an organization like that either. However, he's only accountable to the people of Massachusetts, who will decide whether he's fit to represent them. Next time he's up for election, they can question him to their heart's content on Owl. Alito, on the other hand, will be serving us all. The CAP questions were appropriate in the S.Ct. context, as would questions to Kennedy on Owl or Byrd on the KKK. No hypocrisy at all. Nice try, though.
Rusty, you're missing the POINT. Kennedy is the last one who SHOULD be questioning Alito on THIS particular subject, and it is hypocrisy to "demonize" someones membership in a club when you yourself ALSO have been a member (FOR 52 YEARS) in a club that also practices a form of segregation.
On the lighter side: I'm from Massachusetts and getting rid of a Kennedy ain't an easy task. IF Chappaquiddick, years of womanizing&drinking...and a little um "incident" with his son&nephew down in Palm Beach etc couldn't unseat Teddy, then trust me him belonging to a club that shuns females isn't going to move the lazy-minded constituency that pulls the lever by rote every election to eject the guy. Maybe a really big heavy duty bulldozer might work? ;-)
Here's a perfect example of what I was talking about in my post above regarding Tommy. Jeter2 has been specific and I have to side with him/her (her, if I recall correctly) on this. I've felt Kennedy was rather womanizing for a while. Not a big surprise for a politician, but really now, how can he be the one trying to trumpet this issue as Alito's issue when he suffers a similar situation. It's even worse since Alito's membership was how many years ago? Kennedy is still a member. Attempts to downplay this would have to be rather partisan. True CAP was a bit more noninclusive by fighting against minority meberships also, but really now, this is still bad.
Well losingfaith just as I throw up my hands and THINK all Liberals are hypocrites (I do apologize for THAT--I should have written "some"), you come along with a truly non-partisan fair-minded reasonable post.
Hey I agree Alito should have been QUESTIONED...but I just don't think Ted Kennedy is the one to be doing it.
BTW I'm a "he"...
"BTW I'm a "he"..." - jeter2
Oops, my bad. I could have sworn one time you indicated a she. Noted and hopefully corrected!
Clarification. CAP was against admissions for women and minorities. Colleges don't exactly have memberships. Admissions is what I meant.
You just dont get to tell me what to do. There was NOTHING unprofessional about the questions the dems asked. They were demanded. Its not whether Alito is bigotted. I have seen nothing to say he is or was. He did belong to an organization that is antithetical to equal rights and is getting a lifetime appointment to the SC which HEARS equal rights cases. Finding out exactly what extent this membership has influence on his judgement is not just professional its DEMANDED. If he would still uphold a major Ivy league institution like Princeton keeping out women and minorities is obviously something they ought to know. As for what a reasonable person would see, you cant say, YOU are not qualified. Your very phrasing of the accusations shows this. You keep trying to pretend Dems did what they NEVER did paint Alito as a racist. The ONLY way you get to that nonsense is because the GROUP itself is questionable NOT the questions asked. This is why you are forced to talk about them being nuanced and blurry. Because you are reading things into the questions that are not there. Aliton WAS a member whatever mud rubs off on him for this membership is HIS fault and the groups NOT the dems who have an obligation to DO THEIR JOBS. Not to subjegate themselves and brownose Alito. That is NOT there job, to roll over and ignore the obvious and necessary questions that propriety DEMANDS they ask, nor to make things easy because he is a conservative which is the ONLY way you wouldnt be in here snivelling. WWWAAAAAAAAHHHHHH. Why are you bring TRUE FACTS to the table that make my rightwing ideologue look bad. WAAAAAHHHH the dems are spreading vicious TRUTHS about Alito. Its basically pathetic.
The Media dutifully ignores the FACTS, and follows the SCRIPT.
There is EQUAL evidence that Liberal Groups "pushed" this "unfair" questioning, as there is evidence that the Republicans orchestrated this happening to garner sympathy for the nominee, and to stave off tough questioning about REAL ISSUES.
You go for a job interview, and are asked if you've ever been arrested. Suddenly, your WIFE, who is there for the interview, bursts into tears and the interview is broadcast as personal and unfair. Does the employer deserve to know if a potential employee has ever been arrested? It doesn't matter, because the applicant has managed to "shame" the employer in to not asking. Such a "trick" of avoidance combined with a VICTIM pose and an emotional distraction would never work, in any business in America.
Yet, the Rightwing know how to play the VICTIM game, to change the subject, to demonize people doing their jobs, and to keep the American People from knowing the TRUTH.
Pharmaceutical companies, in the wake of the Alito hearings, have decided to identify 'emotional instability' as a medical condition, and to begin immediately to develope a drug for it...
...the diagnosed condition will be call 'Bawling Reflux Disease', and the prescribed drug will be marketed under the name 'CryBoFlex'...
...no word yet as to whether those pharmaceutical companies can enlist either Senator Lindsay Graham or Mrs. Alito as spokespersons...
...but commercial time will be purchased for maximum exposure on the 'Oprah Winfrey Show'.
What I want to know is when exactly did this "liberal media bias" turn into a conservative media bias? And, how long will we be led to believe that there's STILL a liberal slant to the media? How long can the GOP use this angle?
What I want to know is when exactly did this "liberal media bias" turn into a conservative media bias?
The media have been accused of liberal bias since at least as far back as the colonial days. As to when it 'turned,' that would have been when it became a big business unto itself, say around the late 19th century.
One of the simplest ways of measuring media bias is simply to track newspaper endorsements. From the earliest times that such information was available (around 1932), the Republican presidential candidate got the majority of newspaper endorsements in every election except for 1964, when Johnson just eaked out a majority against Goldwater. Sometimes the imbalance has been overwhelming, like in the 90% range.
And there are many ways besides this to demonstrate conservative bias. On the other hand, when conservatives claim liberal bias, they usually just let the inertia of their claims carry the day ("why, everyone knows the press is liberal"), or else they use some oft-rebutted "study" that polled low-level employees of PBS stations in Boston, New York and Washington DC as proof.
And, how long will we be led to believe that there's STILL a liberal slant to the media? How long can the GOP use this angle?
They'll use it as long as it's useful to them. And it's extremely useful. If the media says anything that displeases them, they can claim to be victims of bias. If the media says anything that pleases them, they can puff themselves up with pride and proclaim, "See? Even the liberal media agrees with us!"
As Al Franken put it in Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them, "You gotta admit, it's a nice racket."
All of this from members of the group that calls itself the compassionate party as opposed to the sham compassionate conservative movement. Thought maybe most of you would be above this, but apparently not.
Are you trying to imply that the legislature should not ask tough questions, lest they make the candidate's wife cry? Would you use this standard in your business? Do you even let candidates spouses sit in on job interviews in your business? Do you think it would be a good idea to do so?
Above what?
... by frankly addressing the issues the Democrats were getting at. It's a typical case of "the cover-up being worse than the crime". The problem of Alito's membership in CAP is what it says about what kind of person he is, and what he believes. It is irrelevant how long ago Alito was in CAP and irrelevant whether or not he remembers being in it. The question is: does membership in an organisation like CAP suggest that he is or was a bigot?
He could have said, when asked about CAP, that back then he believed strongly in preserving the traditions and institutions of his alma mater. He believed in it so strongly that he joined a group that he now realizes was committed to upholding exclusive and prejudiced traditions. He doesn't agree with those atttitudes any more, and he wouldn't join a group like CAP today. If his record as a judge bears out the assertion that he has rejected CAP's attitudes, then the issue is finished. If it doesn't, then he has more explaining to do.
His mistake was in copping the "I don't remember" line as if that excused and explained away his membership. Whether he remembers it or not, when reminded of it and refreshed as to what CAP stood for, it was incumbent on Alito to address the issue of what his decision -- forgotten or not -- to join CAP says about who he was and is. The Democrats who badgered him about it were trying to get him to answer about it, instead of weaseling out from under their questions with "I don't remember that."
As to Mrs. Alito's tears, I think she was genuinely upset at the implication that her husband is a bigot. She knows him, and I'm sure knows that there isn't a bigoted bone in Sam Alito's body. Back in the days of the Civil Rights movement, lots of Southerners opposed mandatory integration while insisting that they were not racists -- they held no hatred in their hearts for black people, they were just standing up for their social order. Outsiders had no right to force Southern society to change to suit their ideals. The problem was that they were defending a social order that held blacks in perpetual inferiority. Whether they were racists or not, the opponents of Civil Rights were standing for a policy the practical result of which was a racist social order.
The issue around CAP is the same. I doubt that Sam Alito is a bigot, but in standing against policies that diversify Princeton and broaden access to social institutions there, he stood for an exclusive and discriminatory social order. Although his motivation was not bigotry, the practical result of his policy agenda was bigotry. Therein lies a fundamental dispute of liberals with conservatives. Liberals see conservative opposition to changing the status quo as defending social injustice, which they can attribute only to bigotry. Conservatives resent being called bigots and insist that they are standing for law, limited government, and important social traditions. The liberals answer that the result of conservatives' policies -- regardless of their motives -- is bigotry and injustice.
So, as I said above, Mrs. Alito was really upset at her husband being called a bigot because she knows he isn't. However, the Democrats who oppose Alito's conservative beliefs are equally sure that he must be a bigot in order to hold them. Alito's conundrum is whether to deny his conservative beliefs and risk losing the support of his base, or openly espouse them and look like he's standing for bigotry. He chose the worst possible option by trying to avoid the whole issue by saying he couldn't remember whether he stood for those conservative values or not.
-mid
I think you’re either forgetting or ignoring what he actually said.
From the The San Francisco Chronicle – January 11,2006
Showing the first signs of taking umbrage through hours of grueling testimony, Alito vigorously disavowed a 1983 essay from the group's magazine that Kennedy quoted, "In Defense of Elitism."
Kennedy quoted the essay saying, "People nowadays just don't seem to know their place. Everywhere one turns, blacks and Hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and Hispanic, the physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children."
Feinstein interjected, urging Kennedy to "finish the last line," which added women to the screed.
Alito said he disagreed with the entire quotation. "I would never endorse it," Alito said. "I never have endorsed it. Had I thought that that's what this organization stood for, I would never associate myself with it in any way." - end-
Now that seems like a reasonable answer. I don't see any "cover-up". It seems clear that what he is saying is that he disagrees with discrimination.
Boston Herald - January 17, 2006
Alito: "Well, Senator, I have wracked my memory about this issue, and I really have no specific recollection of that organization. ... I have tried to think of what might have caused me to sign up for membership, and if I did, it must have been around that time. And the issue that had rankled me about Princeton for some time was the issue of ROTC. I was in ROTC when I was at Princeton and the unit was expelled from the campus, and I thought that was very wrong." -end-
He said he must have joined CAP because CAP was an advocate for the ROTC program at Princeton which had been booted from campus. Judge Alito had a strong personal belief that it was wrong to boot ROTC.
I've seen nothing in his testimony to suggest that he would not be a great Supreme Court Justice.
The issue isn't whether Alito answered the questions about CAP - as you note, he did disavow the group's radical opinions. That's to his credit.
The issue is that the Republicans, and some of their stenographers in the media, painted the Democrats as somehow attacking Alito merely by asking him about his membership in this radical group. The Republican smears and their distribution by the media, not Alito himself, are what MMFA is focusing on.
was make Judge Alito "own" everything that CAP had ever said or done trying the old “guilt by association” approach. To quote something out of the CAP magazine and then try to link Judge Alito to it as his belief is misleading. I don't think that's fair and I think that's what the Republicans and the media were saying.
I see you were responding to the post above yours. My mistake.