Kelly claimed Alito's wife was "crying hysterically after Ted Kennedy made her cry"
SUMMARY: Megyn Kelly claimed that during Justice Samuel Alito's confirmation hearing, his wife, Martha-Ann, was "crying hysterically after Ted Kennedy made her cry." In fact, Martha-Ann Alito broke down in tears during a series of questions and comments by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham.
During the May 19 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Megyn Kelly claimed that during Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s confirmation hearing, his wife, Martha-Ann, was "crying hysterically after [Sen.] Ted Kennedy [D-MA] made her cry, because he was suggesting Sam Alito ... is a racist." Kelly also said, "I'll never forget Mrs. Alito crying. It was a terrible moment. It was a new low in the Senate Judiciary Committee." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, during the hearing, Democrats questioned Alito about his membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a now-defunct organization that opposed the school's increased admission of women and minorities; but it was during comments by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC) that Martha-Ann Alito broke down in tears.
Martha-Ann Alito's emotional response came immediately after this exchange:
GRAHAM: If you don't mind the suspicious nature that I have -- it's that you may be saying that because you want to get on the Supreme Court; that you're disavowing this now because it doesn't look good. And really, what I would look at to believe you're not -- and I'm going to be very honest with you -- is: How have you lived your life? Are you really a closet bigot?
ALITO: I'm not any kind of a bigot. I'm not.
GRAHAM: No, sir, you're not. And you know why I believe that? Not because you just said it -- but that's a good enough reason -- because you seem to be a decent, honorable man. ... Judge Alito, I am sorry that you've had to go through this. I am sorry that your family has had to sit here and listen to this.
Martha-Ann Alito left the hearing room. Despite the fact that her emotional response came not during the Democrats' questioning, but during Graham's characterization of the Democrats' questioning, numerous media outlets pounced on the incident to raise the question of whether Democrats on the committee -- by asking Alito about his membership in CAP -- "took this a step too far."
Founded amid the first enrollment of women to the school, CAP, according to People for the American Way, circulated a fundraising letter in 1973 that claimed that "a student population of approximately 40 percent women and minorities will largely vitiate the alumni body of the future." 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.
During the third day of hearings, preceding Graham's series of questions and comments, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), Kennedy, and then-Sen. Joe Biden each questioned Alito about his membership in CAP.
From the May 19 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
KELLY: Shannon, who, in their right mind, would go through this process? Who, in their right mind? Remember Mrs. Alito, crying hysterically --
SHANNON BREAM (Fox News Supreme Court reporter): I know.
KELLY: -- after Ted Kennedy made her cry, because he was suggesting Sam Alito, our latest Supreme Court justice, is a racist? Who --
BREAM: Yeah. It's --
KELLY: -- who would put themselves through this?
BREAM: It is a brutal --
KELLY: Are good people bowing out?
BREAM: Yeah. I mean, I have actually heard that there are people -- last time around under the Bush administration and this time as well -- there are people who are saying it would be the honor of a lifetime, but I don't want to go through this, and I don't want to put my name in there. I don't want to drag my family through this, either.
You only have to think of a Bork situation or even Justice Clarence Thomas. You mentioned, more recently, Justice Alito and his family.
KELLY: Right.
BREAM: But, listen, the White House has already got someone in place, Stephanie Cutter, who's been a counselor to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. She is going to be the person, kind of the point-person, to shepherd this person through Capitol Hill, through the nomination process, through the confirmation. She is already been the person that's assigned. So, we don't have a nominee yet, but we know the person who will be guiding the nominee through this process, which, as you know, can get very rough, Megyn.
KELLY: Well, she -- I already feel sorry for the nominee, whoever it is. I really do.
BREAM: I do, too.
KELLY: I'll never forget Mrs. Alito crying. It was a terrible moment.
BREAM: It's tough.
KELLY: It was a new low in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Megyn Kelly claimed that Ted Kennedy made her cry.
So which is, right ON? Do you agree with Media Matters that Ted Kennedy didn't make her cry? She cried when Graham supported her husband. Kennedy didn't make her cry.
Rocket science and brain surgery should not be your chosen vocations when you get out of elementary school, right ON!
No one's shown that any of the questioning was unreasonable. How does that qualify as "a new low in the Senate Judiciary Committee"? Should those examining a nominee's qualifications go easy because it might upset the nominee's spouse? It's preposterous to blame the Democrats for "making her cry" when they were just doing their job.
Nope, she got the timeline completely wrong as well. MMFA corrected it.
If Kennedy had said something cruel or inappropriate in some way, it's notable. Otherwise the idea that she was "prompted" to cry is just partisan spin.
Take a hint: Just because Fox says so doesn't make it so.
The husband should have known this was going to happen and turned down the job.
If your trying to garner sympathy for a family that will be sucking on the government teat for life, you've come to the wrong place.
She made herself cry. She should be wondering about his membership in CAP too. Nobody can make anyone else cry.
This is a very poor piece by MMfA, in fact it's downright dishonest.
THEN, after a great deal of time had elapsed, owing to the incredible kindliness of that heroic Lindseed Graham, she could finally release the floodgates and have at it.
And I think her being there was all calculated anyway to keep the Dems from doing their jobs.
"Were these not appropriate questions? Where did they directly call him a bigot? Or is that something that was made up as well?"
"Not the point, Graham did not make her cry as this thread implies."
If it's not the point, then you shouldn't have brought it up.
Therefore, Graham made her cry. What Graham did make her feel sorry for herself and sorry for her husband.
So the Dems shouldn't have asked their pointed questions, huh? THAT is what the issue is, isn't it? Screw that. Committee members do not decide which questions to ask a nominee based on how said nominee's spouse will react.
Excellent. Allow me to make an addition...
proudly list it on your resume, get nominated for one of the most powerful and influential positions in America, and all of a sudden people are asking if you're a bigot during your job interview.
That's interesting, considering that the word "bigot" does not appear in any of the questions from Durbin, Kennedy or Biden. It only appears in Graham's questioning. So I'm wondering if you can dig up the quote you're referring to.
Also interesting that every time that Alito is questioned about it, he plays dumb and can't remember being a member of CAP, why he joined, or why he put it on his resume.
Alito's wife started crying not because of BAD things said by Democrats, but because of GOOD and emotional statements made by Graham about the character of Alito. Here's a (very disrespectful unfortunately, but it contains photographic evidence) video of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVNGzI7aFQs
SO please, don't come here pretending that MMFA is wrong here. Did you even read what MMFA wrote? They gave a factual account of what happened, as corroborated by video evidence.
You are just as clueless as many of the other right-wingers who come here thinking they have something of value to contribute. Get your facts straight, and then come back and try again.
It seems all the rage these days, to make public spectacles of emotion, and to start weeping and crying in front of television cameras, as though emotional instability were not an embarrassment, but instead a virtue... I blame Oprah Winfrey.
GRAHAM: No, sir, you're not. And you know why I believe that? Not because you just said it -- but that's a good enough reason -- because you seem to be a decent, honorable man. ... Judge Alito, I am sorry that you've had to go through this. I am sorry that your family has had to sit here and listen to this.
Such concern and empathy for someone aspiring to such a powerful, public and responsible position.
Where was this empathy and trust when Barack Obama was asked if he was a Muslim and he said, "no"?
Where was this empathy and trust when Barack Obama was asked if he was born in AMERICA and he said, "yes"?
Why was Obama simply saying so not a good enough reason?
Did Barack Obama not convey the same sense of decency and honor when he responded to such questions?
Did his family not remain poised and composed as it happened?
Where was the apology for Barack Obama having to endure such questions?
Where was the apology for his FAMILY having to endure it?
Now I would like to see our resident wingers come here and address it.
Being part of the human race, we Conservatives have among the numbers of those who sometimes ally with us a number of people who are gullible when stories like this get passed around. If you aren't aware of it, I assure you, your side does too. I don't apologize for people that don't represent me, particularly when those I do agree with have publicly rejected their far-fetched concerns. I won't expect you or your allies to apologize for the most gullible people on your side either.
All of them?...
Conservative radio hosts continue to promote discredited claim that Obama has yet to prove he was born in the U.S.
Citing "a guy" and "some people," Quinn & Rose guest host Pintek said of Obama: "I'm still not convinced that he actually was born a natural-born citizen"
Liddy, Pruden repeat debunked claim that Obama's birth certificate is fake
Liddy again falsely claimed Obama does not "have a birth certificate to show that he was born in Hawaii"
Liddy, Corsi again repeated discredited claim that Obama has not produced birth certificate establishing his U.S. citizenship
Conservative radio hosts seize on Obama comment to revive false rumors about his faith
Liddy guest Walid Shoebat falsely claimed that Obama is "definitely a Muslim"
Christian radio host Jan Markell hosted conservative activist Nonie Darwish, who advanced claim that Obama is a "political Muslim"
Boortz: "Let's ask Obama how many prayer rugs he has"
After suggesting Obama was "running for Antichrist," KSFO's Sussman now says if Obama "were on trial for being a Christian ... I think [he] would walk"
Savage on Obama: "Now we have an unknown stealth candidate who went to a madrassas in Indonesia and, in fact, was a Muslim"
Savage on Obama: "We have a right to know if he's a so-called friendly Muslim or one who aspires to more radical teachings"
Savage smeared Obama with false name, "Barack Madrassas Obama"
Conservative radio host Cunningham falsely referred to "Barack Mohammed Hussein Obama," advanced madrassa falsehood
I don't paint someone like ... Rachel Maddow, (I'm guessing she's NOT part of the Right-wing noise machine), with the same brush as (SP?) Randy Rhodes. Will you take responsibility for everything said by everyone on the Left? Will you classify every media figure on your side based on the behavior of the least credible or most extreme examples from your side?
If not, why would you apply that to the Right?
I have heard these accusations made to many of the Right-wing radio hosts you guys like to bash. All of them said that's ridiculous, they consider the matter settled
pete refuted it with a LIST of radio hosts who DIDNT consider the matter settled. I for instance WOULD take responsibility for Randy Rhodes IF I had said while talking about lefty radio hosts... ALL OF THEM....
I agree with your overall point and have said for years that the right isnt responsible for the insanity of Savage or the vitriol from Ann.
Does that satisfy you?
And the goal posts have moved.
Most of you also missed the point of what they were saying in your desperation to find fault with someone on the Right and exhonerate the offenses of the Left. If you look at the closing lines, they were expressing sympathy for Obama's nominee. Whomever that may be will probably be much closer to most of yopu philosophically than to right ON, Megan Kelly or me. None-the-less she found it within her being to feel pitty for the possible excesses from our side that this person might be about to face. Your side, so far, has slandered her with misrepresentation and false accusation. I don't expect you to see this, because if you could see such things you wouldn't be here believing the drivel that passes for truth-finding on this site. right ON was right-on. You are lied to by MMFA writers daily, but haven't the maturity of insight to see it.
Can you point to one single false accusation in the MMFA article? I don't see one. I won't challenge the misrepresentation claptrap because you can hide behind your personal interpretation in the absence of facts supporting you.
Please provide us with one single thing MMFA stated in this article that was a lie. Please be specific. On this or any of the articles on this page. Provide a quote from MMFA and a source proving that the quote is nonfactual.
You wouldn't want us to believe you're just blowing smoke, would you?
"During the May 19 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Megyn Kelly claimed that during Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s confirmation hearing, his wife, Martha-Ann, was "crying hysterically after [Sen.] Ted Kennedy [D-MA] made her cry, because he was suggesting Sam Alito ... is a racist." Kelly also said, "I'll never forget Mrs. Alito crying. It was a terrible moment. It was a new low in the Senate Judiciary Committee." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, during the hearing, Democrats questioned Alito about his membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a now-defunct organization that opposed the school's increased admission of women and minorities; but it was during comments by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC) that Martha-Ann Alito broke down in tears.
Martha-Ann Alito's emotional response came immediately after this exchange:
GRAHAM: If you don't mind the suspicious nature that I have -- it's that you may be saying that because you want to get on the Supreme Court; that you're disavowing this now because it doesn't look good. And really, what I would look at to believe you're not -- and I'm going to be very honest with you -- is: How have you lived your life? Are you really a closet bigot?
ALITO: I'm not any kind of a bigot. I'm not.
GRAHAM: No, sir, you're not. And you know why I believe that? Not because you just said it -- but that's a good enough reason -- because you seem to be a decent, honorable man. ... Judge Alito, I am sorry that you've had to go through this. I am sorry that your family has had to sit here and listen to this.
Martha-Ann Alito left the hearing room. Despite the fact that her emotional response came not during the Democrats' questioning, but during Graham's characterization of the Democrats' questioning, numerous media outlets pounced on the incident to raise the question of whether Democrats on the committee -- by asking Alito about his membership in CAP -- "took this a step too far."
This was used to imply that Kelly was being dishonest. Not only was she honestly characterizing the event, she was doing so in a bi-partisan spirit of sympathy for Obama's nominee. If this kind of omission of important fact occurred in the MSM or RWM MMFA would have headlined it, "FOX", (or other outlet), criticises Kelly on Alito recollections but fails to point out that context was an expression of sympathy for Obama's nominee!" This is just hypocritical rather than being deceptive.
right ON presented this point very clearly. Partisans on the Left continue to base arguments on points he refuted. (See solon (May 19,2009 9:57 pm ET)
It is remarkable to me that none of the Left-wing writers on this site seem to be able to accept the possibility that the other side may include people of knowledge, honesty or insight and seem to believe that MMFA and its supporters are incapable of error. I suspect that the more serious-minded representatives of the Left have fled this site, just as serious-minded people on the Right avoid sites dominated their side's less sophisticated fringe. I come to this site to read serious, critical observations of the Right's failings or overextensions, but have been unable to find this among the readers and seldom among the writers. Can you recommend a better Left-wing site? It will suite my needs better and relieve MMFA of the annoyance of me pointing out their failings.
You bask in the glow of your imaginary intellect, and, to paraphrase J.R.R. Tolquien:
You speak ill of that which is beyond the reach of your thought...and only little wit can excuse you.
If you'll look up the article on Lou Dobb's in which a MMFA study shows he hosts conservative guests more often than Liberal ones, you'll find a rather too long statement of what I understand the unifying concepts of the various Progressive movements to be. Please read that and then return to tell me that I can't accept opinions that differ from my own. Of course, I can't agree with an opinion that differs from my own in the sense that if and when I did, it would no longer differ from my opinion. But I can understand and respect opinions that differ from those I currently hold.
I too am a fan of Tolkien, a body of writing filled with quotable lines. But this one, like yours about accepting opinions different fom my own, are swords with double edges, as yet another saying goes.
And why must my intellect be, "imaginary." Could it not be possible that my intellect is real, but that none-the-less, the conclusions I have reached are wrong? There are a whole host of Left-wing thinkers both past and present that I consider among the highest intellectual ranks and yet, I disagree with their conclusions. Is it really necessary for you to disqualify another persons intelligence?
Take this thread, for example. They start with, "well, the transcript shows that Graham spoke right before she cried!", while ignoring context entirely. Let's say a kid slugs another kid in the face, and the stunned, punchy victim doesn't start to cry until the school nurse applies an ice pack and asks if it hurts. Is it then the nurse's fault that the kid cried? Those around here apparently would think so, and if later the teacher told the parents that the kid cried "after" the other kid hit him, that would somehow be a lie according to Media Matters logic.
Then, if that doesn't stick, they try, "well, it's Alito's fault for joining the group" (i.e., "she deserved it") which contradicts their first argument, and the whole point of the thread. But hey, whatever works.
Then, they try to change the subject, and again contradict the whole point of the thread ("But what about Teresa Kerry?") while, amazingly, accusing others of making a non sequitur.
Mix with a few personal insults and accusations of being a right-winger, and sprinkle in a few (dozen) inappropriate uses of capital letters. Finally, the regulars declare themselves to be winners and pat themselves on the back because some of us don't have the time to go through every response and get in the last word.
You'd have to show how Kennedy "slugged" anyone, though. If he was asking legitimate questions just like anyone else, then you don't have anything there. Your analogy doesn't work without it.
"Then, if that doesn't stick, they try, "well, it's Alito's fault for joining the group" (i.e., "she deserved it") which contradicts their first argument, and the whole point of the thread. But hey, whatever works."
How does that contradict anything? Even if it was true that she cried because Alito looked like a racist, then that's Alito's fault. There's nothing shameful about the questioning.
"Then, they try to change the subject, and again contradict the whole point of the thread ("But what about Teresa Kerry?") while, amazingly, accusing others of making a non sequitur."
I think the question of what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot is quite appropriate. Do you really think conservatives would have any sympathy, or would they more likely claim that it was a sign of emotional disorder?
"Mix with a few personal insults and accusations of being a right-winger, and sprinkle in a few (dozen) inappropriate uses of capital letters. Finally, the regulars declare themselves to be winners and pat themselves on the back because some of us don't have the time to go through every response and get in the last word."
I'd just like to see some sort of cogent argument from you guys. Considering you didn't show any "gaps", I'll keep waiting.
So what's the basis for claiming that Kennedy was the cause of the turmoil, then? Why not Biden or Durbin? Why not the movie she saw the night before, or a song she listened to on the way to the hearing?
And again, the suggestion here is that this questioning was somehow inappropriate. I don't think you will attempt to argue that asking someone about an affiliation with this sort of group is irrelevant or out-of-bounds for any reason. Unless you can make that argument, then obviously Kelly's comments are just plain absurd.
SHANNON BREAM (Fox News Supreme Court reporter): I know.
KELLY: -- after Ted Kennedy made her cry, because he was suggesting Sam Alito, our latest Supreme Court justice, is a racist? Who --
BREAM: Yeah. It's --
KELLY: -- who would put themselves through this?
BREAM: It is a brutal --
KELLY: Are good people bowing out?
Are good people bowing out? Read through that again for comprehension, please. I don't see how you can possibly get around the suggestion that Kennedy did something vicious. It reads as if Alito was unfairly accused of something, Kennedy was acting as a rabid partisan, he made Alito's wife cry. The whole framework she's setting up is dishonest. Alito belonged to a discriminatory organization, that's a valid basis for questioning. Who would want to go through this? If you have nothing that suggests racism in your history, why wouldn't you want to go through it? What's the inherent problem with the process here?
This is not honest characterization of the event, period. Whether she was defending one of Obama's nominees or not doesn't magically change that.
Graham made her cry. Not Kennedy.
They imply that it was Graham that caused her emotional distress by defending her husband.
Is nonsense. They implied no such thing. They are refuting the claim that KENNEDY made her cry by pointing out she didnt cry when Kennedy was questioning her husband but when Graham was. However the bottom line here is if Graham had moved on to something else can you SHOW she would have cried. THAT is necessary to show that it was ANY of the Democrats LEGITIMATE questions that made her cry. You CANNOT show that so your entire longwinded attempt at spin is worthless. The questions were legitimate. No one called Alito a racist. They never ONCE lied about him. They asked legitimate questions about something he REALLY DID DO.
Feel free to go somewhere else. We will attempt to soldier on without your constant simpleminded condescension though it might be tough
Is that Kennedy talking, or Graham?
-----
"Then either Mrs. Alito was finally realizing the truth about her husband or she ought to get some thinker skin. It's politics. Toughen up. Whould you care if Teresa Heinz Kerry cried about the lies told about HER husband? Those werre far worse, and far more baseless."
"Were these not appropriate questions? Where did they directly call him a bigot? Or is that something that was made up as well?"
"So her emotional response to legitimate questioning suffered from a delayed reaction?"
"None of us know. The timing seems very peculiar. The point is that Kelly (and you) are drawing conclusions you can't support and Kelly is propping it up with falsehoods (possibly unintentional)."
"That IS the point. She cried after Lindsey Graham mischaracterized the Democrats' questioning of her husband...She made herself cry. She should be wondering about his membership in CAP too. Nobody can make anyone else cry."
Etc, etc. Really, the hatred just pours off the screen, doesn't it? I've never seen such vicious attacks.
Anyway, righton said that MMfA implied that Graham made her cry. They did no such thing. The point is that she did not cry as a direct response to Kennedy's questioning. Whether Graham made her cry or she just broke down for no discernible reason at all, that point stands. The best case that righton has is that Democrats made her cry. He can't show how that's warranted, or how the questioning was inappropriate in any way, but that's his case. Even that's weak, because that's not what Kelly said. She specified Kennedy. Why not Biden? What was it that Kennedy said that "prompted" tears? Even within the framework of this idiotic argument, Kelly is making an unsubstantiated claim.
I associate with the Republican Party because it has a place in it for Conservatives, (people who advocate the resoration of the restricted government concept outlined in the founding of the U.S. Constitution.) I have great differences with most Republicans who are mostly Rooseveltian, (Teddy) or Hooverian Progressives, (I've referred to them as conservative-Progressives). Nixon and the two Bushes are more recent examples.
I'm not happy to criticize MMFA. I want it to live up to its promise. I believe that speakers for my faction and for other factions on the Right do make mistakes and do at times contort the truth to get it to say what they want it to. I believe that it is foolish to rely on only one side's perspective and appreciate when the other side can help me to stay better grounded in objectivity. However, I have found in MMFA a predominant tendancy to fall prey to the same sort of partisan selective reality that they accuse the Right of displaying and that you are accusing me of displaying. that robs MMFA of its credibility and frustrates my interest in it.
It is very difficult for human beings to rise above their partisanship. It requires a concerted effort and continuous refreshment. (That's why I'm here). I'm sorry you and others see my presentations in such a negative light. I am not a child and really have been a dedicated partisan of the Left in the past, (I was a Marxist, not a Progressive, an Associate Member of the New American Movement, NAM, a Frankfurtian-style oraganization). I am a college graduate with a much higher than average I.Q., have been an off and on member of Mensa and have had a life-long interest in a variety of subjects. These have included Philosophy with a specialization in Epistemology and Ontological theory. I branched out into the intellectual processes by which rational decisions are formed which included studies in Psychology and systems of Logic. Your handle implies an interest in history. I too have such an interest and have paid particular attention to Western Civilization, American history in general and World War Two in particular. My interest in Marxism branched out into the history of Socialism and I am very comfortable in that subject as well.
I have worked as a professional artist in the Academy style, as a psychiatric therapist in a major city's Intensive Care Psychiatric unit as a Master Gardener for a large institution, a farm laborer, and a commercial fisherman.
I have been able to communicate effectively in demanding fields throughout my life, but here on MMFA I am suddenly unable to apply logic, unable to speak honestly, a mear dupe for a Right-wing lie machine, a moron incapable of understanding the point of any issue.
Now you can believe those things if you want to. You can believe everything I've just told you is a lie if you want to. Or you can accept that I and others may not be proof of all of the negative stereotypes you have of people on the Right. You can begin to question whether or not your education is complete if it does not include an understanding of people like me and if you can bring yourself to accept the idea that you don't yet really understand us. I spoke of the difficulty of rising above one's partisan perspective. I believe that many of your cohorts suffer the same problem and that my and other's points seem empty, illogical, inane, etc., not because they are, but because they express perspectives and perceptions that are simply foreign to you.
If you're really as intelligent as you claim, show it. This isn't difficult to follow.
Graham made her cry. Graham's actions made her cry.
I still think the key point here is the implication that Alito was a good man who was unfairly accused of racism. Even if she had broken down during Kennedy's questioning, the idea that made him some sort of meanie for asking legitimate questions is utterly ludicrous.