Senators gave an ‘I, I’ for Alito

An Opinion Line contributor recently wondered who in his right mind would want to put up with the hassle of getting elected but a crook. But my thinking is that you have to be a bit egotistical rather than crooked to want to go through the hassle of a national political campaign. And judging from how many times the senators questioning Justice Samuel Alito used the word “I,” I might be on to something. According to a computer analysis of the hearings from The Washington Post, Republicans used the “I” word 1,180 times. Democrats used it 1,123 times. Combined, they used it far more than the nominee, who said “I” 1,907 times.
Posted by Melissa Cooley

8 Comments

  1. Steven E.
    Posted January 21, 2006 at 8:45 am | Permalink

    But how much time does he spend looking in the mirror each day; that might really tell you something.

  2. Steven E.
    Posted January 21, 2006 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    To clarify: I was not being sarcastic. With the Exner system (the only empirically defensible system) of Rorschach scoring, a particular response to the Rorschach is correlated with other measures of narcissism AND objective measures of how long the experimental subjects looked into a mirror per day.

  3. Steven E.
    Posted January 22, 2006 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    I think along the line, the congressional Democrats have made the calculation that Alito is not worth the expendure of their “resistance capital.”

    I agree with what I presume is your position which is – that is an incorrect decision. If he is not a hill worth dying on, I don’t know what a Democrat would need to do so.

    I was searching in some postings by the Washington Post reporters blog for some comments I saw not long ago. [Couldn't find them]. These obsrvations were that their sources were telling them that the Democrats were hoping let the Alito nomination pass quietly and quickly, so they could then return to issues more favorable to them – like the illegal wire-tappings.

    Is there a down-side to spending, vigorously, capital on both of these issues? I would tend to think not, but there may be reasons not to.

  4. Steven E.
    Posted January 22, 2006 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    Another Ted Rall cartoon that foresaw this subject:

    http://www.ucomics.com/rallcom/2006/01/16/

  5. CF
    Posted January 22, 2006 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

    Steven E,

    God, doesn’t that cartoon nail it.

    If, for the obvious good of the country, the Democrats can’t filibuster a weasel like Altio, what good are they?

    It may take a new third party to get the Democratic Party to straighten up and fly right. Staying IN the party sure isn’t working.

  6. Ian Santiago
    Posted January 22, 2006 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    CF,

    What’s wrong, are you afraid that Alito will reinstate the anit-miscegenation laws?

  7. CF
    Posted January 22, 2006 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    Ian Santiago,

    Yes; and if he does, you’ll have no chance of fulfilling your fantasy of being the ‘bottom’ for a dominant, non-white male.

    I’d hate to see you reach the end of your days without getting to experience what you obviously crave so much.

  8. ProudLib
    Posted January 22, 2006 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

    CF–mega dittos to the rude pundit. The lunatic conservatives killed Harriet Miers because she wasn’t wild-eyed enough. The idea that a President should get whoever he wants has already been refuted by the RADICAL RIGHT.

    So Bush throws the savage carnivores the bloody-red meat of Alito.

    Democrats? Hello? Anybody out there? Anybody at all? Could this be the first step toward making your party relevant again?