ALITO WIFE LEAVES HEARING IN TEARS AFTER DEM ATTACK

[FishForLunch]

I guess they are trying to make Alito a racist and bigot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wed Jan 11 2006 17:22:11 ET

**Exclusive**
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politic...701112244.jpeg
http://thepoliticalteen.com/video/alitowifecrying.wmv

Judge Samuel A. Alito’s wife Martha left the confirmation hearing room in tears this evening, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) apologized to the Judge’s family for the behavior of his fellow committee members during the course of the last three days.

Sen. Graham said: “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.”

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have attacked Judge Samuel A. Alito over his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton and his involvement in the Vanguard case.

One senior Republican in the hearing room said of the situation: “After three full days of attacks against her husband’s character, Mrs. Alito had enough. Democrat behavior during this hearing has not only been wrong, it’s been embarrassing. Ted Kennedy is nothing but a bully.”

[dude1394]

Ted Kennedy is the poster boy of the Democrat Party. The best they have.

[Drbio]

Ted Kennedy is a worthless piece of shit. He has no redeeming value unless you need to learn how to murder someone and get away with it. He is a pathetic excuse of a human being.

[FishForLunch]

PAPER: Sen. Kennedy was member of all-male club
Wed Jan 11 2006 22:40:10 ET

Conservative activists aree eager to point out that Sen Ted Kennedy was on shaky ground accusing the Judge Alito of associating with people opposed to the inclusion of women in private institutions, the WASHINGTON TIMES is fronting on Thursday.

The eight-term senator belonged to an all-male social club -- the Owl -- at Harvard University. The Owl refused to admit women until it was forced to do so during the 1980s, according to records kept by the HARVARD CRIMSON, the student newspaper.

A Kennedy spokeswoman said it was an entirely different matter.

"No one can question Senator Kennedy's commitment to equality, justice and civil rights," said Laura Capps. "What he was part of was a social club, not a radical group pushing a radical agenda."

Anyway, she said, even though women were admitted to the university during Mr. Kennedy's tenure, they weren't fully integrated to the campus until much later.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by FishForLunch

PAPER: Sen. Kennedy was member of all-male club
Wed Jan 11 2006 22:40:10 ET

A Kennedy spokeswoman said it was an entirely different matter.

"No one can question Senator Kennedy's commitment to equality, justice and civil rights," said Laura Capps. "What he was part of was a social club, not a radical group pushing a radical agenda."

Right the democrat party, the party of slavery, the party that has a grand stinking wizard of the KKK, the party that voted against civil rights legislation, the party that wants to keep the brotha' down on the plantation....
Can't be a misogynist.. Puh-leeze.

[Mavdog]

There is nothing that Alito has said that should derail his nomination. he has stated without limitation that he respects the rule of precedence, and that some of his views while he was a reagan administration attorney will not guide him on the bench. all right answers.

the princeton organization is a very embarrassing membership (it was voluntary), from what I have read they were extremely vocal in opposition to women and minorities being admitted into the school. he should stop saying that he doen't recall it, for it is clear that he is a very intelligent person who doesn't "forget" things. just say it was a "youthful indescretion", disown it and move on.

as for the wife leaving the hearings in tears, she's going to need a thicker skin if she is going to stay in dc.

[dude1394]

as for the wife leaving the hearings in tears, she's going to need a thicker skin if she is going to stay in dc.

Yea in the words of Kos...screw her.

[FishForLunch]

Look who's calling Alito racist and bigot, a drunkard who manslaughtered a young woman.

[chumdawg]

Guys, I'm a good Republican like you are, but I'm starting to think that the only voice of reason--reason, that is--is from Mavdog. Anyday now I'm expecting to see this renamed the "Republican Party Lovers and Apologists Forum."

Whether you like it or not, dude, Mavdog is spot-on. Politics is a full-contact sport, unless somehow you own enough of the marbles to take away the sport from the other side.

I'm growing tired of sanctimonious Republicans who think they have carte blanche. That's not ever the way it was supposed to be. And--news flash--that's not quite the way it is now, as much as I'm sure you would like it to be.

[Usually Lurkin]

so is there no such thing as going overboard in politics?
Is there no reason to complain about the idiocy and ugliness that are these "hearings"?

Does Leahy need to grow up and take it with a smile when Biden blows-hard?

[Drbio]

Kennedy is an embarassment to the citizens of the United States. He is an awful man.


chummy- there is room for decorum in politics so I call bullshit on that one. (If that is what you were driving at). Although thick skin is an asset in politics, the need to have it shouldn't be you primary qualification. All politicians should remember the former days when heated debate on the floor was done so with courtesy and respect. The dems of late have completely lost sight of that to the point of manufacturing lies about Alito. It is disgusting.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

Kennedy is an embarassment to the citizens of the United States. He is an awful man.


chummy- there is room for decorum in politics so I call bullshit on that one. (If that is what you were driving at). Although thick skin is an asset in politics, the need to have it shouldn't be you primary qualification. All politicians should remember the former days when heated debate on the floor was done so with courtesy and respect. The dems of late have completely lost sight of that to the point of manufacturing lies about Alito. It is disgusting.

just what are these supposed "lies about alito"?

the statement that it is one party, and not ALL political parties, who play "harball" is ridiculous. the recent attacks on murtha speak volumes.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

There is nothing that Alito has said that should derail his nomination. he has stated without limitation that he respects the rule of precedence, and that some of his views while he was a reagan administration attorney will not guide him on the bench. all right answers.

Given this, what do you think it will say for the state of the confirmation process when the vote falls along straight party lines?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Guys, I'm a good Republican like you are, but I'm starting to think that the only voice of reason--reason, that is--is from Mavdog. Anyday now I'm expecting to see this renamed the "Republican Party Lovers and Apologists Forum."

Whether you like it or not, dude, Mavdog is spot-on. Politics is a full-contact sport, unless somehow you own enough of the marbles to take away the sport from the other side.

I'm growing tired of sanctimonious Republicans who think they have carte blanche. That's not ever the way it was supposed to be. And--news flash--that's not quite the way it is now, as much as I'm sure you would like it to be.

So you actually think this charade of a hearing, pulling up 30 year old fraternity/club notes is relevant? Or like pulling up a judges video rental records is relevant?

It's ONLY relevant if you are a democrat. When was the last Democrat Nominee subjected to character assasination? The democrat party is pathetic. Their behaviour in these hearings is worse than pathetic. It's insulting.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

just what are these supposed "lies about alito"?

the statement that it is one party, and not ALL political parties, who play "harball" is ridiculous. the recent attacks on murtha speak volumes.

Was Murtha sitting is a confirmation hearing? don't you think it's a little bit different comments made in the public forum versus in the seat of the senate. Don't you sort of expect YOUR senators to have a little class?

And don't come whining about Murtha when dubya has been villified by the left for years. Even BEFORE Iraq. I haven't seen murtha being called a bigot recently? A person providing moral support to the enemy but that's a fact, not a fiction.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Given this, what do you think it will say for the state of the confirmation process when the vote falls along straight party lines?

Typical democrat posturing and partisanship.

[dude1394]

From Peggy Noonan:

But this one is all kind of over, isn’t it? It definitively ended when Mrs. Alito walked out in tears. But to me it seemed over on day one. The Democrats on the committee seemed forlorn in a way, as if they knew deep in their hearts that nobody’s listening. Two decades ago they could make their speeches and fake their indignation and accuse a Robert Bork of being a racist chauvinist woman hater and their accusations would ring throughout the country. But now the media they relied on have lost their monopoly. Everyone who’s fired at gets to fire back, shot for shot.

And thank God for it. It will be continually interesting to watch the dems and the media crash and burn as they ratchet up the rhetoric hotter and hotter to try and get someone, anyone to take them seriously.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Given this, what do you think it will say for the state of the confirmation process when the vote falls along straight party lines?

I would say that it is business as usual, which is to say that nothing has changed in washington over the last 50 years

[kg_veteran]

Mavdog - You're right. Nothing has changed in Washington, and it's probably not going to change. I don't agree with your "get thicker skin" comment above, mainly because Alito's wife is not a politician. Why should she just brush it off when her husband is being defamed?

chumdawg - You're off-base with your comments above. I don't dispute that most posters in this forum are Republicans, nor do I dispute that sometimes the rhetoric gets a bit out of control. But to suggest that everybody other than Mavdog (whom I like, btw) is being unreasonable is incorrect. Of course, since your criticism was very general, it's difficult to figure out what you mean. Perhaps you could provide more specifics.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Was Murtha sitting is a confirmation hearing? don't you think it's a little bit different comments made in the public forum versus in the seat of the senate. Don't you sort of expect YOUR senators to have a little class?

And don't come whining about Murtha when dubya has been villified by the left for years. Even BEFORE Iraq. I haven't seen murtha being called a bigot recently? A person providing moral support to the enemy but that's a fact, not a fiction.

no, I don't see the difference that you seem to be suggesting should exist.

did anybody call alioto a "bigot"? no, the question (which is very relevant btw) is if he was a member of a racist/sexist/homophobic group, which by alioto's own hand says he was, does he embrace that viewpoint? after all, he is seeking a lifetime position on the country's highest court.

I don't see anything that has been said in the confirmation hearings that exhibits a "lack of class". if you find something, let us know...

bush has been vilified, just like clinton was. a bit ironic to whine of his supposed mistreatment when the same conduct was done in the 90's.

this is a ruse on "moral support for the enemy" bs. merely an attempt to stifle criticism, criticism that is well deserved IMO.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

did anybody call alioto a "bigot"? no, the question (which is very relevant btw) is if he was a member of a racist/sexist/homophobic group, which by alioto's own hand says he was, does he embrace that viewpoint? after all, he is seeking a lifetime position on the country's highest court.

I don't have a problem with presenting the views of some of the members of the CAP and asking Alito if those were his views then or now, but when Alito says he doesn't remember being in the group and certainly didn't know they espoused any racist/sexist views, why can't that be accepted at face value? No, Kennedy and others have insisted on implying that he is lying in both answers.

So yeah, they may not have said, "Alito, you're a bigot," but they've implied it for sure.

I don't see anything that has been said in the confirmation hearings that exhibits a "lack of class". if you find something, let us know...

Pretty classy to call somebody a liar and imply he's a racist and sexist. Pretty classy to grandstand and demand, for the first time, that the hearings be stopped so that further records can be subpoenaed from CAP.

bush has been vilified, just like clinton was. a bit ironic to whine of his supposed mistreatment when the same conduct was done in the 90's.

Do you really think that Clinton was villified as badly as Bush has been?

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Mavdog - You're right. Nothing has changed in Washington, and it's probably not going to change. I don't agree with your "get thicker skin" comment above, mainly because Alito's wife is not a politician. Why should she just brush it off when her husband is being defamed?

Not only that, but likely, she had higher expectations for the level of personal decency to be delivered from US Senators than she would (and will) for members of the media, talking heads, political strategists, analysis, campaigners, money raisers, and everything else out there.

She wept for the state of the Democratic party on a national level, figuratively.

[Drbio]

I was going to reply to mavdogs rediculous question but I see that it has been amply addressed.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

Not only that, but likely, she had higher expectations for the level of personal decency to be delivered from US Senators than she would (and will) for members of the media, talking heads, political strategists, analysis, campaigners, money raisers, and everything else out there.

She wept for the state of the Democratic party on a national level, figuratively.

Great post.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I don't have a problem with presenting the views of some of the members of the CAP and asking Alito if those were his views then or now, but when Alito says he doesn't remember being in the group and certainly didn't know they espoused any racist/sexist views, why can't that be accepted at face value? No, Kennedy and others have insisted on implying that he is lying in both answers.

So yeah, they may not have said, "Alito, you're a bigot," but they've implied it for sure.

the organization- CAP- has been very vocal in stating bigoted views. as a member he must be called out to either stand with them or against them, he was the one who voluntarily put his membership on a job application.

don't you find his lack of memory on the membership odd, especially when he put it on the job application? I sure do.

Pretty classy to call somebody a liar and imply he's a racist and sexist. Pretty classy to grandstand and demand, for the first time, that the hearings be stopped so that further records can be subpoenaed from CAP.

can you point to any committee member calling alito a "liar"?

it is alito's own fault that the issue of CAP has continued to dog him. the examination of the CAP records was justified- even spector admitted as such. like I said, if alito had just "fessed up" and not attempted to brush off his membership the entire matter would have been contained. he didn't.

Do you really think that Clinton was villified as badly as Bush has been?

absolutely. kenneth starr ring a bell?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

I was going to reply to mavdogs rediculous question but I see that it has been amply addressed.

no, it hasn't. you said "The dems of late have completely lost sight of that to the point of manufacturing lies about Alito. It is disgusting.",and I asked for any example of these supposed "lies". I'm still waiting. you've failed to show any lies. my expectation is you cannot provide ANY.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the organization- CAP- has been very vocal in stating bigoted views. as a member he must be called out to either stand with them or against them, he was the one who voluntarily put his membership on a job application.

Well, a couple of things here.

First, I saw some of the things that CAP was accused of saying, and they didn't seem that bigoted to me. They were complaining about affirmative action policies and minorities getting jobs and entry into the university simply because they were minorities. As you are probably aware, a lot of people who aren't bigoted are against affirmative action.

Second, what would you know about what CAP is vocal about? I bet you'd never heard of them before these hearings, and I sincerely doubt that you know where that organization stands on anything. At best, you know what some members of the organization have said in an editorial or somesuch.

As for calling Alito out to "stand with them or against them," I told you I have no problem with asking the guy if he agrees with a position taken by somebody associated with CAP. What I have a problem with is not accepting his answer.

don't you find his lack of memory on the membership odd, especially when he put it on the job application? I sure do.

I guess since I don't know very much about the organization itself and what membership in the organization really means (and unlike the Democrats, don't purport to know or jump to any conclusions about it), I can't really say. If this was an organization that he was heavily involved with, then it is suspicious, I suppose, that he can't remember anything about it. On the other hand, it may have been an organization he had connection with but wasn't really involved in. I can see a guy trying to get a job in a conservative administration listing anything on his resume that he thought would be attractive to that conservative administration.

Bottom line, I don't care. If he admitted to being opposed to equal rights for minorities or women or something, then maybe we'd have something to talk about. As it is, it's a non-issue.

can you point to any committee member calling alito a "liar"?

Of course not. They didn't come right out and use that term. They said his explanations were "fishy" and "didn't add up." You can call someone a liar without using the word, Mavdog.

it is alito's own fault that the issue of CAP has continued to dog him. the examination of the CAP records was justified- even spector admitted as such. like I said, if alito had just "fessed up" and not attempted to brush off his membership the entire matter would have been contained. he didn't.

No, the only thing that is relevant is whether Alito agrees with a position that would be considered racist or sexist. That's it. Even if they go back and get records that show that Alito was heavily involved in the organization, that doesn't prove anything to me.

absolutely. kenneth starr ring a bell?

I think it's humorous that you equate the accusations against Bush with the established facts about Clinton's behavior.

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Ted Kennedy is the poster boy of the Democrat Party. The best they have.

And the GOP poster boy is Tom DeLay the former leader of the House

[u2sarajevo]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

And the GOP poster boy is Tom DeLay the former leader of the House

Off topic I know, but how is that even remotely similar? I guess neither has been convicted, is that what you mean?

[George Gervin]

MY favorite part of these these hearings in conservatives complaining that the Dems are using the 'guilt by association' playbook. If you listen to any conservative talking head that is what they ALWAYS do to democrats. They find an incident in a town somewhere in the country and then go on to claim'this is what the democratic party stands for", or better yet a teacher somewhere makes an outrageous comment and the " an example of the liberals setting the agenda in public schools".. it's laughable and hypocritical. Some feak somewhere marries an animal and we hear "and dems want to legalize gay marriage. do you see what could happen if we do allow the democratic party destroy the traditional family"

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

Off topic I know, but how is that even remotely similar? I guess neither has been convicted, is that what you mean?

Ok I will explain it Kennedy is not the leader of the democratic party.. you know making democrats guilty by assocciation? god you cons are hypocrites..

[u2sarajevo]

Whatever.....

I found this article interesting.... especially this litte tidbit regarding CAP:

....Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, said an overnight search of records demanded by Democrats found no mention of Alito in a Princeton University alumni group that had opposed efforts to admit more women and minorities -- an ethical issue some Democrats hammered away at in earlier questioning.

Let me be hypocritical in saying that I think Ted Kennedy, Biden, and all his Democratic cronies need to get their facts straight.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

MY favorite part of these these hearings in conservatives complaining that the Dems are using the 'guilt by association' playbook. If you listen to any conservative talking head that is what they ALWAYS do to democrats. They find an incident in a town somewhere in the country and then go on to claim'this is what the democratic party stands for", or better yet a teacher somewhere makes an outrageous comment and the " an example of the liberals setting the agenda in public schools".. it's laughable and hypocritical. Some feak somewhere marries an animal and we hear "and dems want to legalize gay marriage. do you see what could happen if we do allow the democratic party destroy the traditional family"

You're going to have to provide more specifics. Which talking head or conservative has both a) used the "guilt by association" technique and b) complained about it?

If they did, then shame on them, I guess. But general criticisms like yours have about as much validity as a general criticism that "all Democrats want to (insert exaggerated statement)..."

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

Ok I will explain it Kennedy is not the leader of the democratic party.. you know making democrats guilty by assocciation? god you cons are hypocrites..

Who said he was the leader? Do you know what poster boy means?

[MikeB]

Originally Posted by dude1394

So you actually think this charade of a hearing, pulling up 30 year old fraternity/club notes is relevant? Or like pulling up a judges video rental records is relevant?

It's ONLY relevant if you are a democrat. When was the last Democrat Nominee subjected to character assasination? The democrat party is pathetic. Their behaviour in these hearings is worse than pathetic. It's insulting.

When was the last democratic nominee...would be a better question.

And all that about the party of slavery and yada yada is blatantly stupid. Politics is a dirty business and just because your favorite mud slingers are getting muddy for once does not allow you to get all high and mighty like you don't do it too.

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

You're going to have to provide more specifics. Which talking head or conservative has both a) used the "guilt by association" technique and b) complained about it?

If they did, then shame on them, I guess. But general criticisms like yours have about as much validity as a general criticism that "all Democrats want to (insert exaggerated statement)..."

Listen to talk Radio and you hear the inuendo every day. To be honest this is why I think these people on the radio are intellectually dishonest becuase they do apply this guilt by association rhetoric about Dems in general and now they complain about it when it is aplliedto one of their own. I don't agree with this tactic at all including when the Democrats use it.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Well, a couple of things here.

First, I saw some of the things that CAP was accused of saying, and they didn't seem that bigoted to me. They were complaining about affirmative action policies and minorities getting jobs and entry into the university simply because they were minorities. As you are probably aware, a lot of people who aren't bigoted are against affirmative action.

Second, what would you know about what CAP is vocal about? I bet you'd never heard of them before these hearings, and I sincerely doubt that you know where that organization stands on anything. At best, you know what some members of the organization have said in an editorial or somesuch.

"not that bigoted"? sure, if you believe that a person who doesn't want ANY women or non-anglo saxons admitted isn't "that bigoted" you're correct.

unfortunately, the very definition of "bigoted" is what this disbanded org was all about. from the daily princetonian:
"Prospect" was founded in October 1972 by the then-newly-formed CAP, which was co-chaired by Asa Bushnell '21 and Shelby Cullom Davis '30. The latter, who was the University's largest donor at the time, was a strong traditionalist, firmly opposed to the many of the new directions Princeton was taking, including coeducation.

He 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," according to an account in "The Chosen," a book by Jerome Karabel on the history of admissions at Harvard, Yale and 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."

I guess since I don't know very much about the organization itself and what membership in the organization really means (and unlike the Democrats, don't purport to know or jump to any conclusions about it), I can't really say. If this was an organization that he was heavily involved with, then it is suspicious, I suppose, that he can't remember anything about it. On the other hand, it may have been an organization he had connection with but wasn't really involved in. I can see a guy trying to get a job in a conservative administration listing anything on his resume that he thought would be attractive to that conservative administration.

Bottom line, I don't care. If he admitted to being opposed to equal rights for minorities or women or something, then maybe we'd have something to talk about. As it is, it's a non-issue.

I can honestly say that i can remember every organization that I have voluntarily joined, and I wouldn't put on a job application any organization that I had joined to only forget about it a few years later.

Of course not. They didn't come right out and use that term. They said his explanations were "fishy" and "didn't add up." You can call someone a liar without using the word, Mavdog.

ok, so what you're saying is that you read between the lines there was a suggestion that some of the committee members didn't believe alito. that's much different than stating that someone on the committee said alito was a liar.

No, the only thing that is relevant is whether Alito agrees with a position that would be considered racist or sexist. That's it. Even if they go back and get records that showe that Alito was heavily involved in the organization, that doesn't prove anything to me.

if the organization is a bigoted group vocal in its denunciation of women and non-anglos purely due to their sex/race, and a nominee was "heavily involved" in that orgainization, then that is a MAJOR issue and VERY relevant.

I think it's humorous that you equate the accusations against Bush with the established facts about Clinton's behavior.

the starr inquiry was a waste of time and money. it had NOTHING to do with his conduct as president. the same thing is true about the whitewater inquiry. very much the same IMO.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by MikeB

When was the last democratic nominee...would be a better question.

Yeah, I wonder why we haven't had one of those in a while?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

Listen to talk Radio and you hear the inuendo every day. To be honest this is why I think these people on the radio are intellectually dishonest becuase they do apply this guilt by association rhetoric about Dems in general and now they complain about it when it is aplliedto one of their own. I don't agree with this tactic at all including when the Democrats use it.

I don't agree with using overgeneralizations at all. I think there is a difference, however, between a radio talk show host engaging in rhetoric and a Senator in a hearing like this trying to use the tactic.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

"not that bigoted"? sure, if you believe that a person who doesn't want ANY women or non-anglo saxons admitted isn't "that bigoted" you're correct.

I never said that, but of course you know that. What I clearly explained was that the quotes I had read indicated that members of CAP were opposed to affirmative action policies and quotas. That is much different than saying you don't want ANY women or non-anglo saxons (even equally qualified ones) admitted.

unfortunately, the very definition of "bigoted" is what this disbanded org was all about. from the daily princetonian:
"Prospect" was founded in October 1972 by the then-newly-formed CAP, which was co-chaired by Asa Bushnell '21 and Shelby Cullom Davis '30. The latter, who was the University's largest donor at the time, was a strong traditionalist, firmly opposed to the many of the new directions Princeton was taking, including coeducation.

He 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," according to an account in "The Chosen," a book by Jerome Karabel on the history of admissions at Harvard, Yale and 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."

I guess I don't understand. Is this old guy Davis (class of '30?) saying that he doesn't think that future classes will "contribute as much in spirit and substance to the greatness of Princeton" simply because they will be comprised of approximately 40% women and minorities, or is he saying that future classes won't be as qualified because of affirmative action policies? I mean, I'm really not trying to defend what he said, just understand it, because it was clearly taken out of context and/or selectively quoted.

Also, let's assume that this Davis guy who co-chaired CAP and was the university's largest donor was a bigot. So what? Does that mean that all members of CAP were?

I guess I just need to know more before I'll be jumping to any conclusions.

I can honestly say that i can remember every organization that I have voluntarily joined, and I wouldn't put on a job application any organization that I had joined to only forget about it a few years later.

I can, too, but that doesn't mean I can't believe someone who says they don't. And again, frankly I don't care about the organization unless a) it really was as bigoted as you're claiming AND b) Alito was heavily involved in it and knew it was a bigoted organization. Did you see u2's post above? Apparently none of the CAP documents reflect Alito's involvement in the organization.

ok, so what you're saying is that you read between the lines there was a suggestion that some of the committee members didn't believe alito. that's much different than stating that someone on the committee said alito was a liar.

Whatever. When you tell someone, "I don't believe what you're saying," you are calling them a liar.

if the organization is a bigoted group vocal in its denunciation of women and non-anglos purely due to their sex/race, and a nominee was "heavily involved" in that orgainization, then that is a MAJOR issue and VERY relevant.

Sure, but apparently he wasn't heavily involved and it remains up in the air regarding whether the organization was bigoted.

the starr inquiry was a waste of time and money. it had NOTHING to do with his conduct as president. the same thing is true about the whitewater inquiry. very much the same IMO.

Clinton could have saved the government all of those millions of dollars if he had simply told the truth. He didn't until he was forced to do so. If you're worried about a waste of time and money, the blame should still lie with Clinton.

He made a mockery of the office.