Man talk about jumping the shark! I watched some of the hearings and I was embarrassed that some of these senators are considered representatives of the American people. They (Kennedy,Schumer and their ilk) are a disgrace to the American political system. PERIOD!!!!!

Well, I don't have an opinion, really, but John Cole does (specifically see NYT update).

She clearly got upset because of the Dem attacks, though Grahm gave alito a little bit of guff on the financial interest failure to recuse I think, while mostly praising him. But yeah, the AP is misrepresenting what caused it, totally.

BTW, if anyone can find a vid clip of the scuffle between Kennedy and Specter (saw it live), it's priceless. Hilarious. Like two teenagers.

I believe the video Bill is referring to is here at Malkin's sight.

What Lindsay Graham should have asked of Alito was this:

Q: Judge Alito, was your father a bootlegger who turned into a Nazi sympathizer?

Q. Judge Alito, have you ever been involved in a car wreck that resulted in the death of a young woman?

Q: Judge Alito, have you ever been to New York and harassed an intern by making her the centerpiece of a "human sandwich" along with one of your colleagues?

Those questions I would have liked an answer to.

What exactly is untrue about that article? It seems to me that it is just statement of fact.

Fact: she left as her husband was being questioned by Lindsey Graham (it doesn't say because of it)

It doesn't even imply that he caused it.

Q: Judge Alito, have you ever been hired a third party to write papers for you while an undergraduate?

Q: Judge Alito, have you ever been expelled from any school?

Q: Judge Alito, do you have a substance abuse problem and come to work drunk as a skunk?

I have to agree with Ruprect. I went to the link in the post, then clicked on the link in that page to the AP story, and it looked fine to me. The story was quite clear that the cause of her bad feelings was the Democrats, and it did not look like it was suggesting in any way that the Senator was the one triggering her tearful withdrawal. Is the story at that link the same story everyone was originally reacting to? Any possibilty it was changed after the fact by AP or something? [probably just me being paranoid].

Ruprect -

While I agree that the article is factually correct, if you examine it from the sense that news reports are intended to convey prioritized and accurate meaning, it's a bit misleading, in that it doesn't precisely contextualize what upset her; namely, partisan angles against her husband. It mentions them, but only after the lead that focuses on Grahm. It's not too bad, but I'd argue that it's a subtle form of bias. It helps if you imagine the converse situation (Republican attacks on a lib nominee), and fundamentally agree that the media leans left.

Thanks for the link, PotatoHead Bobby.

Bill -

Ok...I will accept the article as selective presentation of the facts. I was more taking exception with calling it an outright lie.

Somebody explain to me again why ideological fanatics and character assassins Ted Kennedy and Charles Schumer are somehow not as bad as Joseph McCarthy. If nothing else, McCarthy didn't exercise real power for more than a few years, while these two Democratic creeps have been polluting the shores of the Potomac for a l-o-n-g time.

Mark D - a decent argument, but the only thing I'll say is, if R's would have attacked a D, the following sentiment:

Nominee's wife left in tears after attacks from Republican senators

Would have shown up in the first four paragraphs, and probably the headline. In this case, you have to get to the fifth paragraph to obtain the real context. This is not the standard form or goal of news reporting, to convey the context in the FIFTH paragraph.

It's not the most outrageous case of bias I've seen, by a country mile, and I can live with it, but ...

"Fact: she left as her husband was being questioned by Lindsey Graham (it doesn't say because of it)"

No, she did NOT leave as he was being questioned by Graham. When the questioning was OVER, Alito rose, turned to his wife who was still there, took her hand and led her directly out of the chamber.

Fact: you were watching something else entirely if you saw her leave before the hearing was adjourned.

The AP story runs the event sequence backwards: she cries & leaves; Graham says he's sorry; Graham says he's not a bigot; Democrats had "withering questions." [Withering questions? Withering on the vine, I'd say.] With this reversed sequence the cause-and-effect is weakened.

Either somebody thought they were Christopher Nolan, or they really wanted to obscure the culpability of the Dems.

JimK,

Yes she did leave during Graham's questioning. She came back after the next recess, and then after the hearing was adjourned for the evening, Alito took her hand and they walked out for the night.

I mean, its an interesting thing to happen and all, but I don't think it gives her absolute moral authority.

I think the reality based community should try to turn it into the idea that she was crying because it all became clear. Her husband is a racist. He is evil. All these years, she never knew. Just like it would happen on TV when the stereotypical republican get exposed.

Anyway, blah blah blah, is this really worth the Senate's time: CAP is really, really bad and therefore Alito is not a good person?

To me this is nothing but a hazing ritual they force republican president's nominees to go through. I wish someone would confront Kennedy with all his own shit. Doesn't have to be the nominee but I would love to see some one tell it like it is to his face on camera.

Wait a minute, WAIT A MINUTE!

This guy LIED on a job application? LIED! LIAR LIAR!

Why don't the Dem's use THAT? Too easy?

God, Please force W to nominate Ted Kennedy for supreme court seat next time around. He would never get voted through, but just so all the other Senators could give him a taste of his own medicine.

Ask him about
his cheating scandal
being Cadillac Eddie
the big obvious thing
his drinking (the other big obvious thing)(don't say he quit because that didn't work for W).
getting all his questions from his donors
his 4 year Army enlistment contract versus his 2 years in the army.
just badger the fuck out of him for every person who ever gave him $.

You forget, being a liar is a badge of honor for post-Clinton Donks.

Another Question!

Judge Alito,

Does a terrorist in the custody of the United States who only has a hook for a hand have a consitutional right to have someone wipe his ass for him daily?

Bill,

I guess I'm so used to seeing "journalism" that is so much worse than this, that this was "good" by comparison. It just didn't seem that bad to me in contrast with the usual dreck.

Does a terrorist in the custody of the United States who only has a hook for a hand have a consitutional right to have someone wipe his ass for him daily?

Oh, great! Another entitlement program.

"Yes she did leave during Graham's questioning. She came back after the next recess, and then after the hearing was adjourned for the evening, Alito took her hand and they walked out for the night."

My apologies then...I only saw a time-condensed version that made no mention of her ever leaving the room.

Again...sorry, I was wrong.

Does a terrorist in the custody of the United States who only has a hook for a hand have a consitutional right to have someone wipe his ass for him daily?

Boy, I hope so.

I was gonna say that I've always been of the opinion that a resume' is the the single most deceitful document anyone will ever author without telling a lie. or rather a properly written resume'

But I decided to include this.

I absolutely hate the phrase "Jumped the Shark"

Dude, the lie on the resume thing is a joke. Alito may have been a member, like he claims to have been, but one who just showed up for the ROTC related meetings a few times. He wasn't, however, a group leader, like Kennedy tried to imply.

Mark D -

I guess I'm so used to seeing "journalism" that is so much worse than this, that this was "good" by comparison. It just didn't seem that bad to me in contrast with the usual dreck.

I agree with you 100%, which is why I didn't share Ace's level of outrage ("bigger fish to fry" and all). It's a commentary in itself that when you can get all the facts, even presented in a certain leading way for effect, it's remarkable, almost positive.

JimK -

I can't say I know how to respond to that. I've not seen an apology in ages...especially on the internet. It's refreshing to see someone take responsibility for their statement and not push the blame on to someone else. To be fair...I didn't watch the thing anyway so for all I knew you were right. Cheers!

Yeah, JimK apologized. But this is going to hurt his CSPAN-geek credentials...

joeindc44 said:

"I think the reality based community should try to turn it into the idea that she was crying because it all became clear. Her husband is a racist. He is evil. All these years, she never knew. Just like it would happen on TV when the stereotypical republican get exposed."

And that is exactly how the Kossacks are spinning it, either she was upset by the truth coming out, or it was all staged.

John Cole's take on this is better-written and actually true.

I wonder if any of the people on this thread who refer to the truth vs. fiction resume issue can prove that their resume is 100% valid.

I know I can't. Over the years I've lost a number of related pieces of paper. Some to fire, some to carelessness.