Here’s left-wing author and blogger David Corn on how the Democrats’ strategy (if you can call it that) at the Samuel Alito hearings failed:
"I still don’t know what the Democrats were thinking. It seems to me they had one strategy — the gotcha strategy. They were hoping to rattle Alito with pointed questions and produce a gaffe-moment that they could then use to define Alito as some sort of crazy-man. But he proved a better hitter than they were pitchers. There were no strikeouts on his part."
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
18 Comments
“But he proved a better hitter than they were pitchers. There were no strikeouts on his part.”
It is hard to strike someone out when they just stand in the box with the bat on their shoulder. He got a pass to get on base because he didnt swing at the pitches, and because the Dems couldnt throw over the plate. They could have got him looking but they didnt.
We all know Alito will vote against choice, against privacy, and for unchecked presidential powers etc. That is why he was nominated, and everyone knows it. The only question remaining is, will he at least kiss the country before forwarding the right wing agenda?
It looks like the loyal opposition needs a deeper bench and some competent relievers. Alito is not a natural hitter. After all, doesnt the white house send him his signals? Nice sacrifice Harriet.
Just for clarification purposes:
I am part of the “all” and I don’t know that Alito will vote against “choice”, “privacy”, or “uncecked presidential powers”
Ksfarmgrrl,”We all know Alito will vote against choice, against privacy, and for unchecked presidential powers etc.”
Uhh . . . no we don’t. We can assume he will, but no one knows but him.
As for the democrats, and their questioning of Alito, I find it rather interesting that Kennedy just yesterday stopped his membership in a club that forbid female members. I can say two things in comparison: Alito dropped his membership years ago, and he never killed anybody. I would say that puts him on a bit higher plateau than Kennedy in my book.
How about Laura Bush, JM? She killed her friend’s boyfriend when she ignored a stop sign.
You’re a Wingnut if:
-Your brain defaults to ‘Chappaquiddick’ whenever the name ‘Kennedy’ is mentioned.
Just kidding, J M Walker! I meant, ‘you MAY be a Wingnut if…’
CF,I believe it was Dick Cavets who said about O J Simpson: “I would rather talk to someone who hasn’t killed his wife.”
I would say the same thing about someone who left his squeeze to drown in a river, while he ran off to consult his lawyers. I don’t consider politics to be an influence on my decision, I think it has to do with justice.
I also question this morons questioning of Alito, and calling him racists as well as other things, when he himself belongs to a club that bans women. A hypocrite and a killer, and we’re stupid enough to vote him in office. Shows where peoples integrity lies.
CF is obviously a morally degraded individual herself so don’t expect her to be bothered by the moral degredation of others, particularly if those individuals are leftists and/or non-Whites.
V.L.R.B!!!
Right you are, J.M.
How could people ever have voted for Bush knowing that his wife killed a man through her own negligence.
Kennedy was drunk. He missed a bridge and drove his car into a river. His passenger drown. He probably would have drown too if he hadn’t been so drunk. Anyway he floats to the surface and she doesn’t.
It was a “rum show” as the British used to say, but it wasn’t murder. Comparing that to OJ knifing his former wife to death is pure hyperbole.
I think we can agree that the Dems’ approach to Alito was ineffectual showboating. But I’m absolutely sure this man is a fascist. His whole record screams it.
PL,”Kennedy was drunk. He missed a bridge and drove his car into a river. His passenger drown. He probably would have drown too if he hadn’t been so drunk. Anyway he floats to the surface and she doesn’t.”
Beautiful . . . He floats, she doesn’t . . . to bad for her, right? Is that your idea of justice? Get drunk, kill some bimbo, call your lawyer, and run for congress. Hey, you are one proud liberal, aintcha? And they busted nominees for not paying SS on maids. Probably should have shot them in your book. Oh, but it was a LIBERAL who killed that girl, so it’s okay.
Any thoughts I had that you might be correct on anything just flew out the window. You are indeed one ignorant moron.
Ah, JM, now I know you don’t mean that.
I think Kennedy did a dishonarable thing. But he was drunk and probably scared and it was an accident.
Only a moron would believe that this is the same thing as OJ cutting his wife’s throat.
PL, So being drunk makes it just another day in the life? The man is quilty of murder, and should have been charged as such. After all, he is supposed to be above reproach as a senator of the united states.
We are going to try and jail people for taking bribes, but this moron gets off scott free for killing Mary Jo Kopechne.
Senator Kennedy’s driver’s license had expired on February 22, 1969 (nearly 5 months before the accident) and had not been renewed. Although driving with an expired license was only a misdemeanor, it did provide the evidence of negligence needed to prove a manslaughter charge in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. The license problem was “fixed” by officials at the Registry of Motor Vehicles, under the direction of Registrar Richard McLaughlin, before the legal proceedings began.
“Any person who wantonly or in a reckless or grossly negligent manner did that which resulted in the death of a human being was guilty of manslaughter, although he did not contemplate such a result.” In other words, negligence in exposing another to injury by doing an act, supplied all the intention the law required to make a defendant responsible for the consequences.
“It’s automatic in Massachusetts when a person is killed in an accident for the prosecutor to bring an action for criminal manslaughter.” ~ Joseph Gargan
“Less than a week after the accident at Chappaquiddick, the Oregonian (Portland, Oregon ~ 7-24-69 ) reported an accident in Salem, Oregon, in which a car crashed through the chain on a ferry while crossing the Willamette River. A passenger riding in the car had drowned, but the driver escaped from the car and swam to shore. The driver was charged with negligent homicide.”
“Chappaquiddick has been called “the most brilliant cover-up ever achieved in a nation where investigative procedures are well developed and where the principles of equal justice prevail, at least during some of those moments where people are watching.”"The Last Kennedy by Robert Sherrill
http://www.ytedk.com/intro.htm
“I think Kennedy did a dishonarable thing. But he was drunk and probably scared and it was an accident.”
Sorry, dude, that doesn’t quite wash.
I think this is a subject that Walker gets worked up about.
Off Topic a little bit: I remember when in the early 1970s when National Lampoon did one of their fake magazine ads that showed an old VW Beetle floating on the water (like the real ones did) with a caption that said, “If Ted Kenneday had been driving a VW that night, he’d president today.” In the next issue was an apology from National Lampoon about the ad. From what I know, they never before, or since, apologized to anybody for anything. Which I think speaks to the incredible power of the Kennedy family.
Clearly, Kennedy was guilty of at least involuntary manslaughter.
The Kennedy family was able to prevail upon Roone Arledge to supress some especially seamy made for TV movies about the Kennedy’s and Monroe.
So, I think it is probably correct that they have been given more than their fair share of breaks by this country and one could make complaints about injustice. I am not in favor of a Kennedy dynasty any more than I am a Bush dynasty.
Having said that, the Kennedys have been through more than there fair share of tragic, untimely deaths.
Bobby and John both returned their US checks to the government and never cashed a one.
It can be difficult to find consensus on what is ultimately right and just.
My $0.02 as our friend flike says.
In Ed’s favorite paper, the Washington Post, there was talk among the reporters who opined that the Democrats were content to rush Alito through, so they could return to stories they found more favorable to them – e.g., illegal wire-tappings.
In the Senate hearing he did not go on the record indicating what he would do in future matters before the court. But, it does not seem an unreasonable extrapolation that he would be for high degrees of presidential autonomy, against choice, against privacy, and for any Republican who wants to own a machine gun. (not serious on the last one)
Steven,Bobby and John Kennedy were both men of character. I have nothing but respect for both of them. That said, Ted, in my opinion, has little if any character and can credit the fact that he has lasted so long in congress on his brothers.
Yes, I do get worked up when hypocrites and people who have used their status to avoid justice have the temerity to denigrate other people. I get the same way about Bush, Clinton, Delay, and all the others who have, or have had, no business leading this country.
Just my 2 cents.
Pardon me for stating the obvious, but this isn’t about Kennedy.
“Uhh . . . no we don’t. We can assume he will, but no one knows but him.”
Yeah, I suppose he could have been fooling everyone over the past 30 years (I wouldn’t take that bet). Or he could change his views (maybe in the long-term, but the short promises to be a nightmare).
This guy has a long scary record. We don’t have to guess; it’s all documented. With the except of free speech, he is in almost every respect Bork II, and, not surprisingly, expressed deep admiration for the man, a year after Bork was defeated for the same job (and also shown to lie under oath, by the way).
He has wanted to serve on the Supreme Court since he was a student, to undo the decisions of the Warren Court. People change, but nothing in the interim suggests he has.
It’s going to be quite a ride.
By the way, I checked out your link. Whee.
Below is a question I sent into the Post about the source of Brownback’s confidence that Alito was his man. Note, I don’t use Kansas in the return line. I suspect they delete those without looking at them. (The poster’s were given preference if they could sound like some of the people at the questioning)
“Brownback critic: Brownback, who had reservations about Roberts, appears solidly behind Alito. Brownback is serious about overturning Roe v. Wade. Since Alito never really answered any questions during the confirmation, what would the source of Brownback’s confidence be? Not quite as convoluted as Biden, but I did my best.
“Dana Milbank: I believe Brownback’s source of comfort on this was Alito’s mother, who said: ‘Of course, he’s against abortion.’”
I don’t think Alito has done much to make himself a stealth candidate. I think with him – what you see, is what you get.
I think he will be confirmed and the Supreme Court will shift decidedly to the Right. That will have implications for a long time to come.